> On 7 Feb 2018, at 22:18, Urs Liska <li...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > >> That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you transcripe music. >> in this cases it's better to use the circle of fifth/fourth, however you >> might call it. > > Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the historical > context of the original poster's question. > I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European music > from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds apart from > Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth, life/death, > dream/reality, whatever you want).
The staff system refers to Pythagorean tuning, and orchestral instruments, mainly the strings, adapt the harmony into 5-limit Just Intonation. It makes distant keys (with many accidentals) harder to perform, and less harmonically focused, which the composer might exploit. > My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744 > (http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ). > The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the variant a > flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats) and then reaches an > absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend" (meaning: life is dissolving) on > the minor subdominant: a fes minor seventh chord (=> <fes' asas' ces'' > eses''> in LilyPond language)! There's no way this could ever make sense in e > minor. > But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the original > edition: <fes g ces d> (the d even being "resolved" to des). This probably happens on piano, too, before the development of effective E12 tuning methods, which is early 1900s. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user