Sharp over a note?

[Dave2002]

I'm looking at a score by Orlando Gibbons, and in the particular Fantasia I'm staring at, in bar 51 there is a sharp sign over an F crochet. I'm wondering why the sharp is over the note, rather than in front of it.

Does anyone know what this might mean?

[rauschwerk]

I'm looking at a score by Orlando Gibbons, and in the particular Fantasia I'm staring at, in bar 51 there is a sharp sign over an F crochet. I'm wondering why the sharp is over the note, rather than in front of it.

Does anyone know what this might mean?

An editor has inserted this optional accidental. It is what performers of Gibbons's time would have sung or played in accordance with the rules of 'musica ficta' (q.v.).

[Dave2002]

An editor has inserted this optional accidental. It is what performers of Gibbons's time would have sung or played in accordance with the rules of 'musica ficta' (q.v.).

So essentially a suggestion by an editor as to what musicians of the time might have actually played or sung - but with sufficient uncertainty that playing the raised pitch note is optional - https://www.britannica.com/art/musica-ficta - is that correct?

I've transcribed the piece into Musescore, and can presumably get the sharp above the note by using a text field, but Musescore, if rendering the music will still play a the note at its written pitch - i.e. as a natural.

Thanks for the steer on this.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I've transcribed the piece into Musescore, and can presumably get the sharp above the note by using a text field, but Musescore, if rendering the music will still play a the note at its written pitch - i.e. as a natural.

On SIBELIUS you can put a sharp sign in front of the note and then "hide" it so that it doesn't show when you view and/or print the score, whilst still playing the accidental on playback - doesn't Musescore have this sort of facility?

[rauschwerk]

So essentially a suggestion by an editor as to what musicians of the time might have actually played or sung - but with sufficient uncertainty that playing the raised pitch note is optional - https://www.britannica.com/art/musica-ficta - is that correct?

That's certainly my understanding.

[Dave2002]

On SIBELIUS you can put a sharp sign in front of the note and then "hide" it so that it doesn't show when you view and/or print the score, whilst still playing the accidental on playback - doesn't Musescore have this sort of facility?

Seems a bit erratic - but there are two ways.

1. Put in the accidental before the note. Then use the V key to toggle it on/off. It will still be visible in the Musescore screen, but greyed out if it's not to be printed. Printing removes the accidental altogether.

2. Put in the accidental. Then invoke the Inspector - select the item to be made visible/invisible. Then either check or unchek the relevant box for visibility.

I say it's erratic. That's because I note that sometimes features don't work (on my machine at least), and they have to be kicked back into life by exiting the program and re-entering it. The V feature seems to be one of these on quick inspection. Maybe it's a key lock issue ... but basically Musescore does seem to have the equivalent feature to the one you mention. I just need to get more familiar with this - or maybe I've done something wrong.

[ardcarp]

Being a mere hand-writer of music, may I suggest using your programme (whatever it is) leaving out the superscribed sharp. Then write a very neat sharp sign over the F by hand. Photocopy that page. Job done.

PS Is it one of the fantasias for viols? I love them. And I think Purcell must have known them when he wrote his own deliberately backward-looking fantasias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ZOJ-9q2AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zrMW-cTyY

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Being a mere hand-writer of music, may I suggest using your programme (whatever it is) leaving out the superscribed sharp. Then write a very neat sharp sign over the F by hand. Photocopy that page. Job done.

I think Dave (also) wants an accurate playback from his computer?

Another solution which might be easier would be to put a cautionary accidental in front of the note - this is the # symbol as usual, but in brackets [ie (#) ] which many editors use in later Music instead of the superscriptio symbol. (And, yes, meaning "this is probably what the composer expected, but didn't actually write in the manuscript - or which isn't in the first published edition(s) of a work for which the manuscript is missing. Performers should try both versions out to see which one seems most convincing to them". )

PS Is it one of the fantasias for viols? I love them. And I think Purcell must have known them when he wrote his own deliberately backward-looking fantasias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ZOJ-9q2AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zrMW-cTyY

[Dave2002]

I think Dave (also) wants an accurate playback from his computer?

Another solution which might be easier would be to put a cautionary accidental in front of the note - this is the # symbol as usual, but in brackets [ie (#) ] which many editors use in later Music instead of the superscription symbol. (And, yes, meaning "this is probably what the composer expected, but didn't actually write in the manuscript - or which isn't in the first published edition(s) of a work for which the manuscript is missing. Performers should try both versions out to see which one seems most convincing to them". )

To be honest my ear isn't quick enough to notice the difference. The note in question passes very quickly, and is masked to an extent by what is going on in other parts. I have tried both variants.

Yes - I could write out the music, and as a one off it might have been quicker than trying to encode it all in Musescore, but I was using this as a learning exercise to see how to do it. I still haven't completely finished the Schubert piece I set myself as another exercise.

I now have several options. I can output the Musescore file as an XML or MIDI file, and import the XML into Sibelius - which provides a somewhat more tuneful virtual ensemble. The midi file can be played on a keyboard or in a DAW. In Sibelius I can select just one part, and hear what that sounds like by itself, or select more than one - but not all parts - to hear the harmonies. In Musescore I think the only way at present is to use the Mixer, and then just mute or enable, or adjust the volume for each part. If midi is used in a DAW this is pretty standard stuff.

Re the Gibbons work, I'm not sure what it comes from originally. I've tried to match it up with scores at IMSLP, but where there are manuscripts I start to appreciate the efforts of modern day publishers and editors, as the originals are (to me) almost completely undecipherable. I experienced this also with the manuscripts for Der Fluyten Lust-hof by Jacob van Eyck. They may be free at IMSLP - but they are very hard to use without experience of old notation.

I would like to have music scanning software, to make data entry easier in the future. I think that Sibelius - even Sibelius First - comes with a package for this.

[ardcarp]

Ferney, may I respectfully suggest that the cautionary accidental is a reminder to players or singers that it must be used? In traditional scoring there is no way of saying ‘take your pick’ and the superscribed accidental is a tool used mainly by editors of early music where conventions such as ‘ficta’ may or may not come into play. As an example known to many, Robert Stone’s famous setting of The Lord’s Prayer is given various interpretations.

[Dave2002]

Being a mere hand-writer of music, may I suggest using your programme (whatever it is) leaving out the superscribed sharp. Then write a very neat sharp sign over the F by hand. Photocopy that page. Job done.

PS Is it one of the fantasias for viols? I love them. And I think Purcell must have known them when he wrote his own deliberately backward-looking fantasias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ZOJ-9q2AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zrMW-cTyY

You haven't seen my handwriting! Everyone complains, and even I can hardly read it these days. OTOH, I found some old school books not long ago, and some of the writing is highly legible - though the masters didn't always like it.

I'd probably use a photo editing (or graphic designer) tool if really pushed - put the score on (say) Layer 1, then put the superscribed sharp on another layer - size, font etc. suitably adjusted.

I have used such photo editing tools to improve photocopied texts, as the scanned background is often not white eough, and degrades readability.

However, I do still use paper, and copiers, sometimes. I now get told off for not being "green" enough.

Thanks for the suggestions - and also the Gibbons links - though not the ones we are trying to play. Listening to them currently.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ferney, may I respectfully suggest that the cautionary accidental is a reminder to players or singers that it must be used?

Yes - you are quite right, of course.

[Dave2002]

Ferney, may I respectfully suggest that the cautionary accidental is a reminder to players or singers that it must be used? In traditional scoring there is no way of saying ‘take your pick’ and the superscribed accidental is a tool used mainly by editors of early music where conventions such as ‘ficta’ may or may not come into play. As an example known to many, Robert Stone’s famous setting of The Lord’s Prayer is given various interpretations.

What is curious about the piece I've been working on is that there is only one of these superscript notations in two pages of music. I suspect that many of the other accidentals have been put in by editors. You are I'm sure right that performers shouldn't necessarily have the option, as many of us don't understand the conventions of the day, but perhaps drawing attention to these does give performers the chance to review and decide what to play/sing before giving any performance. It's perhaps an editor's way of saying "you decide", thus "absolving" him/her from any responsibility - something which in an another area we have spent much time over in recent years.

[Dave2002]

Just found the Gibbons Fantasia - it's No 5 in this edition - https://imslp.org/wiki/Fantasias_of_...bons,_Orlando)
Editor Edward Francis Rimbault
Publisher Info. London: Chappell, for the Members of the Musical Antiquarian Society, 1843.

I couldn't fathom it at all from the earlier manuscript from IMSLP - though perhaps now I'll be able to do that - with some effort!

See https://imslp.org/wiki/Fantasias_of_...bons,_Orlando)
Editor First edition (second issue)
Publisher Info. London: at the Bell, n.d.(ca.1620).

[MrGongGong]

Once you have sussed out how to do non-playing graphics in Sibelius it's quite simple to do.