Re: an "odd" accidental problem...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Wols Lists wrote
> I'm more used to seeing what you describe in key signatures, […]

Yes, that's pretty much standard for key signature changes and LilyPond uses
cancellation naturals by default (this can be switched off).

As far as accidentals are concerned, is was orchestral practice to use
cancelling natural signs when switching from double-sharp to sharp or
double-flat to flat.
But this is considered totally unnecessary today (accidentals don't "add
up") and everything is clear just by using the appropriate accidental.

What makes me wonder is the wording "the composer needs an E natural".
Well, if he needs one, why doesn't he write one? Why does he write an F-flat
then and why does he require a superfluent natural as a prefix? Is there a
reason behind it or is it just a certain ignorance of engraving
rules/practice?

Don't get me wrong - LilyPond practically can do anything, and Harm has
shown how in this case, but the question is whether anything should be done
if there are better (i.e. less confusing) solutions.  Conventions usually
help the reader a great deal, strange/unusual/unnecessary solutions only
hamper fluent reading.



Wols Lists wrote
> […] but all 
> these things are *tradition*, and you'll see it a lot if you look 
> outside your normal repertoire.

This, indeed, is very true and there are lots of different conventions
depending on the genre of music or the type of score/ensemble. And these
conventions even have changed over the time.

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html