Re: why does lily prints both a natural and sharp sign?

[bruys .]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Xavier Scheuer" <address@hidden>
To: "Marc Mouries" <address@hidden>
Cc: "lilypond-user" <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: why does lily prints both a natural and sharp sign?

On 11 June 2011 14:57, Marc Mouries <address@hidden> wrote:

thanks for the info.

This is standard typesetting rules.

I have several copies of Debussy clair de lune in D flat and I have never
seen a natural sign before the g sharp
Here is an example on IMSLP:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Suite_Bergamasque_%28Debussy%2C_Claude%29#Clair_de_lune_.28No.3.29_2
Is there a place online where these rules can be looked up?

I do not know it is "standard typesetting rules" that accidentals _at
the key signature_ implies extra naturals, though.
Some people have valuable (books) references, such as Ted Ross or
Gardner Read, maybe they could check the "rules" concerning key
signature and extra naturals.

I am not aware of (free) online version of music typesetting rules
(conventions), but again, maybe other users have advice.

I've looked at Ted Ross, Kurt Stone, Gardner Read and Elaine Gould and can't find any explicit mention of this.  The closest I can find is page 126 of my Gardner Read, where he shows the double-flat to flat transition as requiring a natural-flat sign to emphasise that it's a single flat.  You could argue that a sharp on a note which would normally be flat should have the same natural-sharp notation, to emphasise that you're not sharpening the note (to natural) but making it a sharp.

--
Phil Holmes

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Howdy,
For completeness, I feel I should mention that this issue is discussed with relation to double accidentals in Elaine Gould (p. 81, "Cancelling accidentals").
It is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article titled "Accidental":

Note that in a few cases the accidental might change the note by more than a semitone: for example, if a G sharp is followed in the same measure by a G flat, the flat sign on the latter note means it will be two semitones lower than if no accidental were present. Thus, the effect of the accidental has to be understood in relation to the "natural" meaning of the note's staff position. For the sake of clarity, some composers put a natural in front of the accidental. Thus, if in this example the composer actually wanted the note a semitone lower than G-natural, he might put first a natural sign to cancel the previous G-sharp, then the flat. However, under most contexts, an F-sharp could be used instead.

In the Notation Reference
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/displaying-pitches#automatic-accidentals
under the "modern" style, it would be clearer if the sentence "The modern rule
prints the same accidentals as default, with
two exceptions..." were amended to "Other than this, the modern rule
prints the same accidentals as default, with
two further exceptions...", or otherwise rewritten, as the sentence before it has been added explaining that this style also prints fewer natural signs.
Regards,
Bruys