Kieren MacMillan wrote > By hiding the accidental after the break, I introduce [unnecessary] > ambiguity at the beginning of the system, which can only be resolved by > looking backwards to the end of the last system — it is precisely for this > reason that Gould (and many others) suggest repeating the accidental after > a line break.
I don't see the ambiguity. The note is tied anyway and not to be articulated if I were to start playing from that measure. If I want to play the note I have to look back anyway. I use reminder accidentals a lot because I believe they greatly improve sightreadability but as I said earlier I believe a reminder in the discussed case would be rather disturbing for sightreading, if at all I'd rather denote the alteration with a small accidental above the notehead but this is of course personal preference. Also I don't think this has something to do with classical or non-classical music or a piece having or not having a key signature. If I were to write or to play something more "classical" I'd prefer the tied note without accidental as well. Regards, Tao -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143507.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
