|
From: | Phil Holmes |
Subject: | Re: why does lily prints both a natural and sharp sign? |
Date: | Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:40:48 +0100 |
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |