Re: an "odd" accidental problem...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Urs Liska-3 wrote
> 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. […]


Hi Urs,

Of course you are right and also David (K.)'s remarks about enharmonics with
regards to strings/positions certainly is what these Etudes are about
("thinking of a B-sharp as a C" etc.).  I was just playing on the original
posting ("E natural needed") when the source/composer/background was
completely unknown.

By the way, I've found a similar case (combination of accidental and
cancellation sign) in Fuchs' 16th Etude, just to show a sample musical
context:

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

Apart from enharmonic spellings (I'm OK with that, there always may be
reasons for one or the other enharmonic spelling), the really weird thing is
the combination with a cancelling natural sign even after (!) the
accidental.
The D-sharp marked in red cancels out the D-flat of the general key
signature, but, most interestingly, the cancelling natural sign has been
placed after the sharp, directly in front of the notehead.
This really is a bit queer!
I've seen naturals precede accidentals, but never the other way round.

Isn't that peculiar?

Torsten




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