----- Original Message -----
From: "Janek Warchol" <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com>
To: "Urs Liska" <li...@ursliska.de>
Cc: "LilyPond Users" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de> wrote:
Anyway, I also think there should be only one accidental in the measure
after the line break (although i don't have a strong opinion on which one
to
emend.
If I put an accidental on the first (i.e. the tied note) then I
definitely
don't need a second one in that measure.
But maybe I'd suggest to remove the the accidental on the tied note (and
then of course place one before the second note).
Personally i'd have a cautionary (i.e. parenthesized or smaller)
accidental right after the break, and then a regular one. This way
the situation is clear.
best,
Janek
Gould (page 80) says that a sharp note tied to another across a system break
should cause the note-tied-to to have a normal accidental, and further notes
of the same (altered) pitch should have no accidental - exactly as the OP
was requesting.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
