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.
What note is this:
This screenshot only shows the second system. Here's the actual Lilypond code:
\version "2.17"
\language "english"
\score {
\relative c'' {
\override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t
\key a \major
c1 ~ \break c
}
}
\language "english"
\score {
\relative c'' {
\override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t
\key a \major
c1 ~ \break c
}
}
It's a C-natural!!! =)
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.
Best,
Kieren.