Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation

[Urs Liska]

pls <address@hidden> schrieb:
>
>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.
>

Thank you. This is enough to convinve me. I'll incorporate it then.

Urs

>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user