On 09 Sep 2005, at 6:15 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 09 Sep 2005, at 5:09 AM, dhbailey wrote:
I can't recall where I've read this, but I'm sure a search of
Stone or Read or Ross will support it -- the later note in the
second measure requires an accidental. The rule about
accidentals working throughout the measure only applies when
there has been an actual accidental placed in the measure.
Since with tied notes, there isn't an accidental placed in front
of the tied note in the second measure
[sigh]
David, I don't mean to get snippy, but for crying out loud, this
is *exactly what this entire thread has been about* -- situations
where there IS an accidental placed in front of the tied note in
the second measure (because the second measure begins a new
system, or a new page, etc).
And didn't my second sentence above: "The rule about accidentals
working
throughout the measure only applies when there has been an actual
accidental placed in the measure." answer the question?
Well, no, clearly not, since pretty much the entire thread has been a
debate about whether an accidental placed before a note that
*continues* a tie counts as an "actual accidental placed in the
measure" or not.
[So far, the thread seems to be leaning towards "or not," especially
if the accidental in question is parenthesized.]
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
