[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: unexpected accidental following cadenza

From: James
Subject: Re: unexpected accidental following cadenza
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 09:48:06 +0000


On 3 March 2012 09:11, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> James <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 3 March 2012 08:55, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> David Bobroff <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> I got a surprise when a cancelling accidental was printed at the
>>>> beginning of a measure.  This happened following a cadenza.  Short
>>>> example below:
>>>> %%%
>>>> \version "2.14.2"
>>>> \relative c'
>>>> {
>>>>   \key c \major
>>>>   \cadenzaOn
>>>>   fis4 g a b
>>>>   \cadenzaOff
>>>>   \bar "|"
>>>>   f
>>>> }
>>>> %%%
>>>> Is this a bug?
>>> Don't think so.  \cadenzaOn switches off all timing (which is the whole
>>> idea behind it).  Your whole example does not leave bar 1.
>> I don't understand that. You can see 4 beats before the \cadenzaOff,
> It does not matter how many beats you see before the \cadenzaOff.  The
> whole point of the cadenza is that it does not count.
>> while the manual bar doesn't change anything,
> It creates a bar line where usually no bar line would be _because_ _a_
> _cadenza_ _does_ _not_ _count_.
>> \cadenzaOff comes before the *next* measure mean that he previous
>> measure has been completed for the \cadenzaOn
> No.  It means that we start counting again, and so far, we have not
> counted a single beat because a cadenza does not count.
>>> The manual
>>> bar line does not change that.  You can probably write something like
>>> << { \cadenzaOn fis4 g a b \cadenzaOff } \\ s1 >> if you want timing to
>>> continue.
>>> Incidentally: your example does not look like a cadenza at all.
>> No but it is a tiny example :)
> You can make it tinier by omitting a few notes.  It is pointless and
> misleading to put exactly 4 quarters in a cadenza since a cadenza does
> not count.  I may have mentioned it.  But in case I forgot: a cadenza
> does not count.


I am guessing then that the expectation of David B was that as soon as
you turn off the cadenza, then it should act as if the (in this
example) new measure would be like the first measure of the piece
proper. Hence the question about why the natural sign is printed. I
understand that cadenzas turn of 'everything' (so to speak) and that
they 'don't count', but why would I expect a 'cancelling' sign at all
for the first note after a cadenza?

Only 'stuff' between \cadenzOn and \cadenzaOff should ignore the
'rules' but everything outside of the \cadenza[On|Off] should revert

So f-natural in a cmajor key outside of the \cadenza[On|Off] would not
be shown with a cancellation mark.

It is counter intuitive.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]