Am 22.10.2013 11:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes:
Am 22.10.2013 10:33, schrieb Simon Bailey:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks for your opinion.
Obviously it boils down to the statement that leaving the reminder sharp for
the gis' is impractical/impolite but not wrong.
i think david actually made the statement exactly the other way
around. omitting the reminder sharp may confuse a musician, especially
with a forced natural at the beginning of the bar.
Rereading David's post I realize I haven't completely understood him yet.
First he says it's mandatory then cautionary, responding to different
parts of my message.
So obviously I'm still not really clear about it.
Sigh. You first put an example where after a linebreak an accidental is
repeat on a tied note. I comment on that.
Then you explain that in the original score you are working from, there
is no such accidental. I now make a different statement starting with
"In that case, ..."
Now you are confused that I made two different statements.
I have a real problem understanding the source of your confusion.
The source of the confusion may even be slightly irrelevant because I
think the confusion was already there before reading your comment.
If you change the rules according to which accidentals are typeset in
relation to your original score, _obviously_ the situation as a
consequence of your changed rules is a different one. That was the
whole point of changing the rules.
So the situation is like this:
a) the tied g' doesn't have a natural:
the g' is correct and the following gis' does not _need_ a sharp
because 'the bar starts after the tied note'
(this is the situation in the original edition, so this is formally
correct)
b) when I add a cautionary natural on the tied g' (in the new edition) I
need to also print the sharp for the gis'
Again: you are making an editorial decision here. There are several
valid decisions you can make. The important thing is _documenting_ your
decision so that
a) the reader knows which pitch to play
b) the reader knows what was originally written
The latter point is only relevant when doing a critical edition, and
particularly relevant when doing an Urtext.
Exactly. That's why I'm actually asking this question. From the
readabil- and unambigu-ity point of view I would have managed to do it
alone.
Thanks again
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
