On 20.11.2013, at 13:03, Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 20.11.2013 12:58, schrieb David Kastrup: >> pls <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an \ottava. >>>> Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? >>>> >>>> Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? >>> Gould's gut feeling says you should "repeat an accidental if sounding >>> at a different octave, even when the same pitch is used with an octave >>> sign". >> Huh. That appeals more to my mathematician's gut than my musician's. >> > > Same with me. > When looking at my example as a pianist it is _perfectly_ clear what is meant. > But looking at it as an editor/engraver, I'm insecure and think "hey, they > _are_ different notes." > > I'll be pondering this a little more, waiting for maybe more opinions. Gardner agrees with Gould: "Accidentals must also be repeated in a measure if any of the octave signs is used over or under a note affected by an accidental." As an accidental not included in a key signature only affects the pitch it precedes I'd say the octavated chord needs accidentals, if only to ensure that sight-reading becomes a tiny little bit less ambiguous.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
