lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break


From: Richard Shann
Subject: Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:31:08 +0000

On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 21:50 +0100, Noeck wrote:
> Am 26.03.2013 21:35, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> > I think Lilypond should offer as many options as possible, so that the 
> > user/engraver can make the choice.
> 
> I'd like to second that. I think that’s some outcome of the discussion:

There is still something not said here: by default LilyPond is printing
two accidentals in the measure following the line break in the example I
posted. This is contrary to Gould (as quoted), and to most people's
wishes. And, worse still, applying the tweak to omit the second
accidental will mean that this note will inexplicably lose its
accidental if, after some further changes the bar in question is no
longer positioned after a line break. 

(This is hypothetical - I don't have an example - but the original case
I was working on has indeed gone away after a footnote was added to the
page, and I recall on one occasion adding an accidental and finding that
the bar concerned had moved to a different page. So, in principle, you
could end up in catch 22, omit the accidental with \once \override
Accidental #'stencil = ##f and the measure moves away from the beginning
of the line, when the accidental is needed, put it back and it moves
after the line break again).

So, I think there is indeed a bug, and the default should be changed,
and, if desired, a option to turn on the behavior that the bar after the
line break (which has the accidental on the first note because it is
tied) should not follow the convention that this accidental applies to
the whole bar.

Richard


> 
> 1.) There should be a switch to choose whether tied altered notes have
> accidentals after a line break.
> 
> and
> 2.) Additional notes with the same pitch in this first bar after the
> break should have accidentals according to the accidental style (i.e. no
> repeated accidental in the default style).
> 
> and perhaps not (yet) consensus, but my suggestion:
> 3.) The "classical" style (with the accidental in question) should be
> default for 1.) as LP mostly sticks to classical conventions for the
> default of many options.
> 
> Joram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]