Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Janek Warchol" <address@hidden>
To: "Urs Liska" <address@hidden>
Cc: "LilyPond Users" <address@hidden>
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 <address@hidden> 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