Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation

[pls]

On 20.11.2013, at 13:03, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 20.11.2013 12:58, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> pls <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska <address@hidden> 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.