Am 27.07.2018 um 16:01 schrieb 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.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but if you mean what I think
you mean, I don't think that's reasonable.
First, I can't think how a sharp could ever be used as a "cautionary"
accidental in a piece with "flat"-type key signature.
Second, in the second line of the quoted snippet, I see the following:
- The 9th 16th note is d-natural.
- The 5th 16th note is different from the 9th 16th note.
These two together make it clear to me that the 5th 16th note should be
a d-sharp.
Also, the combination of sharp-natural-notehead seems to make sense to
me if taken as a kind of prefix operator:
notehead alone = d-flat
natural + notehead = d-natural
sharp+(natural + notehead) = d-sharp
... and then omit parens, assuming associativity ;-).
Or is this what you wanted to say, anyway?
Best
Lukas
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
