Re: transposable figured bass?

[Chris Yate]

On 29 June 2015 at 19:13, Thomas Morley <address@hidden> wrote:

2015-06-29 18:08 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mattes <address@hidden>:
>
> Just a question - is this an example drawn from a historic source?
> What you call a "flat sign" would back then be called a "fa-sign" and
> the corresponing "sharp sign" would be read as a "mi sign". Both "voces"
> are independent of transposition, so "C♭" does _not_ denote a C flat
> (ces) but rather a C-fa which is exactly what is needed in your example
> in _both_ cases, so (in case this is not an original source) you might
> better write 65♭ in the first, untransposed case.
>
> HTH Ralf Mattes



I'd like to  second that, it's what I learned decades ago, iirc ;)

See also the attached png from BWV 121
Sorry for the bad resolution.
(Although the right Hand is not Bach ofcourse.)

The score can be downloaded at
http://imslp.org/wiki/Christum_wir_sollen_loben_schon,_BWV_121_%28Bach,_Johann_Sebastian%29

Cheers,
  Harm

I will look at my (modern) harmony book to see what they use. I think for a tierce de picardie chord in the key of Gm, they would use a Natural to indicate the major third, and a Sharp to indicate the same interval in the key of Dm.  However, that raises the important question of what an ABRSM Theory examiner would do, if I used a flat sign to write a minor triad in a chord where the major third is sharpened...

Another think -- in the example you give, is a natural sign only there to "correct" a previous accidental on the figure? (otherwise, what else would it mean?).

Thanks,

Chris