Re: Engraving chords with the same note twice, but different accidentals

[Hans Åberg]

> On 3 Feb 2022, at 19:04, Knute Snortum <ksnortum@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:32 AM Leo Correia de Verdier
> <leo.correia.de.verdier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 11:51 AM Kieren MacMillan 
>> <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>>> Speaking as a keyboard player (and lilypond novice) I would recommend 
>>>> re-spelling the a flat as a g sharp! Sometimes, theory has to take a 
>>>> backseat to readability.
>>> 
>>> If theoretical correctness (or, say, accuracy to a previous source) isn't a 
>>> requirement, then I agree with Charlie: this is a moment in which, as a 
>>> keyboard player, I'd much rather see two different notes [by pitch name].
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, I'd say the split-stem convention is [perhaps 
>>> counterintuitively?!] more readable for me. If you want to do this in 
>>> Lilypond, I'm pretty sure Harm has solved this particular issue (see e.g., 
>>> https://archiv.lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,1176.msg6932.html#msg6932).
> 
> Ok, the first attachment is using Harm's splayed stem chord function.
> Better?  Worse?
> 
> Respelling the chord using a "gs" for the "af" is a possibility, but
> what about respelling the "a" as a "bff"?  The second attachment shows
> how that would look.

This seems to be the theoretically correct, as you have a number of persistent 
A♭, and above a B♭ which is lowered chromatically, so it becomes a B𝄫 then.

One example of a playability concern is for an orchestral harp, which can set 
pedal flats and sharps as in a key signature, but can not change the pedals 
fast enough during performance. Then it must be a G♯ and an A; letting the 
harpist do the respelling costs money (according to Blatter).