Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David (et al),

Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in the  
following statement:

> It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
> *and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
> when doing Lilypond pitch input.


Quite the contrary, the "conventional rules of printed scores" DO  
consider (incorporate) "the sound of the music" — that's why the  
Western notation system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/ 
shortcomings, and countless attempts to replace it with a "superior"  
alternative).

Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple  
notation example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps),  
and the pitch class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the  
treble clef (i.e., F), then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch  
that should be performed is an F-sharp (i.e., fis'').

Now, let's "do Lilypond pitch input" for this same example. You want  
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and  
display the result "in D major" (i.e., with a D major key signature).

Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
   theMusic = { fis'' }

Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
    \score { \new Staff << \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic >> }

Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in  
theMusic definition exposes the fundamental problem with a "follow- 
the-key-signature" approach.

Hope this helps!
Kieren.