Re: an "odd" accidental problem...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Addenda et corrigenda:

I was mistaken, my example shown wasn't an example of D-sharp, but actually
D-natural. So the order of accidentals is comprehensible.

This becomes clear when taking the preceding measure (at the end of the
preceding line) into account:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/fuchs-accidentals2.png> 

The original D-flat will be turned into a D-natural and from there (!) into
a D-sharp.  There is no need for a natural sign because the preceding
D-natural.
In the next bar, the first sharp seems to be a cautionary accidental
(reminding of the D-sharp in the preceding measure) with a natural directly
behind, yielding a D-natural again.

In any case, the multiple accidentals are quite unnecessary, the ITM edition
was published in 1959.
The only thing I can think of that the composer wanted to explicitly point
out the direction of the alteration with respect to the preceding
accidental. In this case, a D-natural without preceding sharp would imply an
alteration up from the key signature's D-flat, where actually it's a
down-alteration with respect to the preceding D-sharp.
But this is rather speculative, but at least this way of seeing it makes
some sense to me.

All the best,
Torsten



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