Re: Redundant accidentals after clef changes

[Brian Barker]

At 15:19 25/10/2015 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> I'm glad we singers don't meet this sort of thing in "normal" music. 
> My own take is for having extra accidentals (ie clef 
> changes=>forget) but also the extra cancellations (1471). (Perhaps 
> written above.)
>
> [from a position of ignorance of convention.]

For what it's worth, Elaine Gould has no doubt of the convention - 
that such accidentals are required: "An accidental holds good only in 
the clef in which it is written. A change of clef requires a further 
accidental for a note of the same pitch..." (Behind Bars, p 78).

Brian Barker