Re: Mandatory or a cautionary accidental?

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 22.10.2013 10:33, schrieb Simon Bailey:
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> thanks for your opinion.
>>> Obviously it boils down to the statement that leaving the reminder sharp for
>>> the gis' is impractical/impolite but not wrong.
>> i think david actually made the statement exactly the other way
>> around. omitting the reminder sharp may confuse a musician, especially
>> with a forced natural at the beginning of the bar.
>
> Rereading David's post I realize I haven't completely understood him yet.
> First he says it's mandatory then cautionary, responding to different
> parts of my message.
> So obviously I'm still not really clear about it.

Sigh.  You first put an example where after a linebreak an accidental is
repeat on a tied note.  I comment on that.

Then you explain that in the original score you are working from, there
is no such accidental.  I now make a different statement starting with
"In that case, ..."

Now you are confused that I made two different statements.

I have a real problem understanding the source of your confusion.

If you change the rules according to which accidentals are typeset in
relation to your original score, _obviously_ the situation as a
consequence of your changed rules is a different one.  That was the
whole point of changing the rules.

Again: you are making an editorial decision here.  There are several
valid decisions you can make.  The important thing is _documenting_ your
decision so that
a) the reader knows which pitch to play
b) the reader knows what was originally written
The latter point is only relevant when doing a critical edition, and
particularly relevant when doing an Urtext.

-- 
David Kastrup