Re: Issue 1701 in lilypond: default accidental style prints too many 'extra' naturals

[bruys .]

I came across a further reference, in Richard Rastall's The Notation of
Western Music (2nd edition), if you look at the main index reference under
"accidental" (I'd quote the page number, but I don't have the book with me),
you'll see that he explicitly refers to cancelling single accidentals. He is
talking about the rise of the notation of tonal music, and mentions Bach's
Well Tempered Clavier on the same page. The issue of whether this was
practiced in the 19th Century, to any great extent, is still open.
Regards,
Bruys

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM, bruys . <address@hidden> wrote:

> An interesting question. I can't say I have. The trouble is, is that as
> soon as you get a both a flattened and a sharpened note within the same bar,
> you are likely to be looking at something fairly recent. The original bug
> observation, too, referred to the flattened note being in the key signature.
> I can imagine there might have been some composers who might have used a
> single sharp when the flat was in the key signature, but a natural and sharp
> combination to cancel a flattened note that actually appeared in the same
> bar. But, finding an example of a consistent practice of that is going to be
> practically impossible.
>
> In the Ninth Edition (1955) of the Oxford Companion to Music, it mentions
> that sometimes (although "rarely") a doubled natural sign is used to cancel
> a double sharp or a double flat sign. I haven't seen that, either.
>
> Mind you, all the references seem to suggest that the combination of a
> natural sign with a sharp or flat sign is redundant, anyway, and don't
> recommend it even for setting older music. We can agree that the
> combination's use was standard practice to cancel a doubled accidental, and
> it's great to have the option available, but maybe it shouldn't be the
> default.
>
> Regards,
> Bruys
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:32 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>> Comment #6 on issue 1701 by address@hidden: default accidental style
>> prints too many 'extra' naturals
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/**lilypond/issues/detail?id=1701<http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1701>
>>
>>  I believe the [wikipedia] source quoted in that message is wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Well, that is too strong a statement.  It says that "some composers put a
>> natural" in front of ges following gis.  Probably some composers do, but I
>> have never seen it.
>>
>> Has anyone seen the extra natural without a preceding double-accidental
>> consistently that it might have been standard?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> bug-lilypond mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/bug-lilypond<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond>
>>
>
>