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

[bruys .]

I'm looking at Dover's PIANO MUSIC OF ROBERT SCHUMANN: SERIES I which is a
reprint of Breitkopf & Härtel, originally printed between 1879 & 1887.

On page 179, 5th system, 2nd bar, there is an extra natural before the d#.
No other d's in sight, but the key signature is f minor. That would seem to
be an example using the feature.

On page 164, 2nd system, 5th bar, there is an extra natural before the d#,
but this time the key signature is f# major. It's probably there because
there is a d## in another octave, previously, in the same bar
(theoretically, accidentals only apply to the same octave, we are told).

On page 186, 1st bar, there is an extra natural before the e-flat, where the
key signature is b-flat minor. This is presumably because there is an
e-double-flat in the previous bar (so in this case, it is a cautionary
accidental, but not explictly so - the symbols are not enclosed in
parentheses).

If you want to include extra naturals, then an algorithm is probably not
going to cover all cases, anyway. Having the algorithm is useful - if the
rules it follows are clear, it'll work for most cases, but not all. You'll
probably be wanting to reproduce what is found in an old score, whether it
follows the rules, or not. Therefore, I'd prefer to see an easy way of
explicitly specifying that an extra natural is wanted (e.g. two exclamation
marks after the note, fis!!). You could then even use double natural signs,
if you wanted to.

Regards,
Bruys

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:40:08PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> address@hidden writes:
> >>
> >> > In light of the discussion about this patch, how hard would it be to
> >> > make it controllable?  I don't have a good idea of the name, since
> >> > IIRC we already have an extraNatural property.
> >>
> >> As long as not a single user _wants_ the old behavior, why bother?
> >
> > I thought that some people _did_ want that behavior.  There is some
> > discussion about whether or not they _should_ want that behavior, but
> > if it's easy to accommodate them, I'd rather that lilypond allow
> > people to shoot themselves in the foot if they specifically request
> > it.
>
> If there is no example of a composition using the feature except old
> Lilypond printouts, supporting this is a distraction in code and
> documentation.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>