Re: an "odd" accidental problem...

[Urs Liska]

Am 27.07.2018 um 14:30 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:
> 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?

It's completely impossible to discuss these questions without the 
musical context. There are musical situations where e natural and f flat 
can be freely exchanged, but there are many other contexts where it 
*does* make a difference. In common western music a pitch is usually a 
function of the harmony, and an f flat can have many valid uses in an e 
minor piece. On the other hand there are many examples where composers, 
copyists or publishers simply make errors or introduce stupid things in 
an attempt to simplify notation. My all-time favourite is the chord < 
fes g ces c> in a publication of a Schubert song where the manuscript 
(correctly) spelled <fes asas ces eses> (a f flat minor seventh).

Urs