I think that making distiction between classical and non-clasiccal music is very important here. To be more precise - distinction between music _with_ key signature (classical) and music _without_ key signature. The point is that ambiguity is caused by the presence of key signature. If there is no key signature then there is no problem. So... in music without key signature it's better to not repeat accidental after line break. In classical music - it's better to repeat it. That's my view.
By the way Elaine Gould also states that "for music with many tied chords, it's often better not to repeat accidentals, as they congest the beginning of the system".
Dnia 26-03-2013 o godz. 20:31 Kieren MacMillan napisa³(a):
Hi,
1. Without a "tied-to" accidental, "starting at the beginning of the
system" (e.g.) will almost certainly lead to confusion or errors;
What makes you think so?
Actually I instinctively thought the opposite.
If I were to see such a note while sightreading I'm almost certain I'd
misinterprete the tie for a slur.What note is this:This screenshot only shows the second system. Here's the actual Lilypond code:\version "2.17"
\language "english"
\score {
\relative c'' {
\override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t
\key a \major
c1 ~ \break c
}
}It's a C-natural!!! =)By hiding the accidental after the break, I introduce [unnecessary] ambiguity at the beginning of the system, which can only be resolved by looking backwards to the end of the last system — it is precisely for this reason that Gould (and many others) suggest repeating the accidental after a line break.Best,Kieren.
