Kieren MacMillan wrote > 1. Without a "tied-to" accidental, "starting at the beginning of the > system" (e.g.) will almost certainly lead to confusion or errors;
What makes you think so? Actually I instinctively thought the opposite. If I were to see such a note while sightreading I'm almost certain I'd misinterprete the tie for a slur. Of course I can only speak for myself here. I play and typeset a lot of latin american music which has a lot of syncopation which makes this particlar scene appear quite often. Maybe I got used to something non-standard but it still seems more logical to me to omit the tied accidental and treat the measure as if there was no line break. That's why I'm curious why Gould states his rule as he does. Is there any reasoning in his book? Of course I'm also for flexibility and to have all listed options available so everyone can choose what s/he prefers. Regards, Tao -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143482.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
