There are two specific situations I'm interested in.

  1. note with accidental tied into next bar (G♯ say, in key C) and in the next bar the ♯ is repeated on the note at the end of the tie. Is a following G in the second bar a G♯?

  2. note with accidental tied into next bar as above but a cautionary ♯ is applied in brackets on the tied note in second bar, Is the following G now G ♮ as it would be without the cautionary accidental?

  3. Variant of (1) but tie is split over lines.

Edit to show precise example - what do the rules of notation define the last note of the triplet as? Tie with accidentals example

  • 1
    Can you explain #3? If you just mean splitting to the next stave on the page, it's same as going over a measure bar line. – Carl Witthoft Jun 20 '19 at 13:45
  • 2
    PS Congratulations on "..two specific situations..." leading to a list of 3. You must be a software engineer :-) – Carl Witthoft Jun 20 '19 at 13:46
  • 1
    I'm glad about the title of your question! (It contains the essential tags). It is answered already here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/33533/… – Albrecht Hügli Jun 20 '19 at 14:09
  • @AlbrechtHügli - yes, seems like a dupe to me too. – Tim Jun 20 '19 at 14:35
  • 'but tie is split over lines'. What do you mean? – Tim Jun 20 '19 at 14:36

Any tied note must be the same as the note it's tied to. Otherwise it's a slur!. So an accidental sharp on a G will make it G♯, and the note it's tied to will also have to be a G♯.

Heather is correct, assuming the G note (tied) is in the next bar. At that point, the bar line has officially cancelled that accidental - except it can't for the tied note! One rule breaks another! So if there is another G♯ needed in that following bar, it'll need another accidental anyway - not even a courtesy/advisory one, but one in its own right.

(EDIT): Further to the question, now with example. Since the second G♯ has a sharp attatched, which strictly speaking isn't necessary, it does mean that the last G of the triplet must also be G♯. I'd have put a ♯ sign in brackets just before it - making it crystal clear.

On your second point, if the publisher/writer is good enough to put an advisory sharp for the tied note, surely they would also be good enough to put in an advisory natural sig if the next G, even though in the next bar, needed to be natural. Otherwise leave out all the advisories!

  • This still does not answer the question (1). If I place a # in front of a g in a bar then subsequent g notes will be augmented. Are you saying that if that note happens to be tied from a g# in the previous bar then this no longer applies? – user61525 Jun 20 '19 at 13:31
  • Sorry about that. If any note is changed due to an accidental, then every other note of the same name on the same line/space in that bar will also be affected. Unless there is a cancellation sign - the natural. After that, any other same notes will follow the natural, unless there is another accidental affecting that same note. I already stated that if a note is tied from the previous bar, in which it had an accidental applied, that accidental follows through. To be tied over bar lines, it makes sense that ... – Tim Jun 20 '19 at 13:42
  • 2
    ...both notes are the same! Notes themselves cannot be augmented - that's for intervals between two notes. They can, however, be sharpened, as is the case in this question. – Tim Jun 20 '19 at 13:42

Accidentals hold through ties, but that accidental does not hold to the next untied note. If that note should have an accidental, it needs to be placed again. If not, a courtesy accidental reminding the player of the original quality of the note is appreciated.

  • With the exception of tying over a line break; then it's advisory to repeat the accidental. – yo' Jun 20 '19 at 12:43
  • @yo', yes that would be helpful in terms of reminding the player, but it is not an exception since it doesn't change how the accidental works in ties. Just an extra courtesy. – Heather S. Jun 20 '19 at 12:46

The practical real-world answer to all these questions is very simple:

Anyone who writes a tied G# (with or without cautionary accidentals, and with or without parentheses around them) immediately followed by a G natural, and without a natural sign on that G natural, is a fool, and they deserve to hear whatever note their performers feel like playing.

A theoretical debate about what the notation ought to mean is pointless.

If makes no difference if the tie crosses a system or page break - though a break may make a cautionary G# on the second note of the tie more advisable.

  • Not sure of the logic in this answer. Two 'rules' occur here. Bar lines cancel accidentals, and a tie can only join two or more notes that are identical. Of the two, the second is actually more logical to follow - otherwise it's not a tie, it's a slur. And as such would probably sound awful. Common sense ought to prevail. – Tim Jun 21 '19 at 6:18
  • The tie across a system break introduces a new quirk, in this situation it is standard practice to repeat the accidental. That in theory has the side effect of applying to subsequent notes in the bar if the accidental is not cautionary as would be the normal practice. So this makes the question posed much more likely than you might expect. – user61525 Jun 27 '19 at 12:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.