Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break

[TaoCG]

Kieren MacMillan wrote
> 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.

I don't see the ambiguity. The note is tied anyway and not to be articulated
if I were to start playing from that measure. If I want to play the note I
have to look back anyway.

I use reminder accidentals a lot because I believe they greatly improve
sightreadability but as I said earlier I believe a reminder in the discussed
case would be rather disturbing for sightreading, if at all I'd rather
denote the alteration with a small accidental above the notehead but this is
of course personal preference.

Also I don't think this has something to do with classical or non-classical
music or a piece having or not having a key signature.
If I were to write or to play something more "classical" I'd prefer the tied
note without accidental as well.

Regards,
Tao



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143507.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.