On 29 June 2015 at 19:13, Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-06-29 18:08 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mattes <r.mat...@mh-freiburg.de>: > > > > Just a question - is this an example drawn from a historic source? > > What you call a "flat sign" would back then be called a "fa-sign" and > > the corresponing "sharp sign" would be read as a "mi sign". Both "voces" > > are independent of transposition, so "C♭" does _not_ denote a C flat > > (ces) but rather a C-fa which is exactly what is needed in your example > > in _both_ cases, so (in case this is not an original source) you might > > better write 65♭ in the first, untransposed case. > > > > HTH Ralf Mattes > > > > I'd like to second that, it's what I learned decades ago, iirc ;) > > See also the attached png from BWV 121 > Sorry for the bad resolution. > (Although the right Hand is not Bach ofcourse.) > > The score can be downloaded at > > http://imslp.org/wiki/Christum_wir_sollen_loben_schon,_BWV_121_%28Bach,_Johann_Sebastian%29 > > Cheers, > Harm > I will look at my (modern) harmony book to see what they use. I think for a tierce de picardie chord in the key of Gm, they would use a Natural to indicate the major third, and a Sharp to indicate the same interval in the key of Dm. However, that raises the important question of what an ABRSM Theory examiner would do, if I used a flat sign to write a minor triad in a chord where the major third is sharpened... Another think -- in the example you give, is a natural sign only there to "correct" a previous accidental on the figure? (otherwise, what else would it mean?). Thanks, Chris
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
