Am 27.07.2018 um 14:30 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:
What makes me wonder is the wording "the composer needs an E natural". Well, if he needs one, why doesn't he write one? Why does he write an F-flat then and why does he require a superfluent natural as a prefix? Is there a reason behind it or is it just a certain ignorance of engraving rules/practice?
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. In common western music a pitch is usually a function of the harmony, and an f flat can have many valid uses in an e minor piece. On the other hand there are many examples where composers, copyists or publishers simply make errors or introduce stupid things in an attempt to simplify notation. My all-time favourite is the chord < fes g ces c> in a publication of a Schubert song where the manuscript (correctly) spelled <fes asas ces eses> (a f flat minor seventh).
Urs _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
