Am Die, 12. M?r 2002 01:14:43 +0100, schrieb David Boersma: > I just would like to tell that until a few years ago I made the same > mistake, although it was not entirely my fault. As a kid I played the > clarinet and one exercise book that I used quite a lot kept to the rule > that accidentals would not be repeated for other octaves.
[...]
> Then I looked it up in the most used Dutch musicological
> handbook and there it was explicitly stated that if the composer wants the
> accidental in more octaves, (s)he has to specify it in all of them. It
> also acknowledged that many people get confused here, because this rule
> does NOT hold for the sharps & flats in the beginning of the staff that
> indicate the key; they do hold for all octaves.
Well, interesting. One time I found somewhere a C (without accidentals)
and a C# in one accord and decided to play both as C#. Intuitively I
took it as a typo. But if I see this discussion, I'd think in this case
it would be best to write the according accidental to every octave in on
staff and every staff of one instrument, because the best standard is
nothing, if nobody knows it. And because this problem arises not too
often it is difficult to remeber by novices. So an intuitive way should
be used.
On the other hand it is very surprising if in a trumpet voice falls an
accidental from the sky, which doesn't change anything, because at the
other staff a trombone had another accidental.
But it seems to me a little bit difficult to make such decitions
automagically, because Lily had to know, which staves belong together in
that way.
Perhaps Lily could issue some typesetting warnings if it thinks that the
notation is not unified, so the user is advised to limit the scope of
accidentals manually.
Tobias
--
Tobias ,----------------------------------------------------------,
Schlemmer / ul. Wolgina 8/1/1004 Tel.: (+7|8) 903-146-48-71 |
cand. math. / 117485 Moskau Fax.: 089 2443-16636
-. / http://www.schlemmer.de.tt GnuPG/PGP Public Keys:
\ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4A77CEF5 (RSA)
\ / bzw. DF2A703C (DSA)
'
Ja, sie sind definitiv pissed. Zum Teil, weil sie Unmenschen sind, zum
Teil, weil sie nicht wissen, was sie tut und zum Teil, weil sie ihren Job
hassen. L?uft halt anders als "Mr. Anderson, if the employee has a
problem, the company has a problem." Denn hier hat jeder employee ein
Problem und damit die company an sich, aber es gibt niemanden, den das
interessieren w?rde.
-- Michael Croon
msg00855/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
