On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 10:33:54AM +0100, Werner Icking wrote:
>
> I don't know exactly where I read why the 2nd sharp should be there
> (Chaplik?), but the given reason was, that the sharp had to be applied
> to the first g in the 2nd bar, because there is no sharp in that bar up
> that note. But adding the sharp to that note would be wrong because both
> notes in reality stand for one note. So the accidental hat to be moved in
> front of this note, the tied g, the last in the first bar.
>
> As a conseqence there is now no sharp in the 2nd bar. Therefore there
> has to be a sharp on the 2nd g.
>
> I'm sure that this solution can be found in many, many examples.
>
This is a plausible explanation. But I can't remember having seen it
anywhere (my memory might be flaky, though).
> > > An example can be found in Bach's Ouvert�re No. 3 (Suite Nr. 3)
> > > first movement, violin I, bar 59-60
> > >
> > > e16 d c d e d c b a8 f+ b- #d ~ | d f a- #d~d f b- d | ...
> > > ^^^ ^^^
> > This looks like theres a sharp at the end of the first bar
> > because it's the first d-sharp in it (not knowing the music
> > well, assuming it's D-major).
>
> You are right. But my examples should mainly demonstrate the
> usage of the sharp in the 2nd bar which you would omit.
>
Beware, no!! This was what my suggestion and patch was all about!
I *wanted* this extra sharp which was not there!
Dirk.
