Re: Mandatory or a cautionary accidental?

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 22.10.2013 11:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
>
>> 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.

> Exactly. That's why I'm actually asking this question. From the
> readabil- and unambigu-ity point of view I would have managed to do it
> alone.

So where is the problem?  If there is no accidental in the original
(neither for the tied note nor for the following one), you put two
accidentals in and use parentheses or small print or whatever else you
use in order to mark them as editorial additions of your edition.  If
your score is _exclusively_ for historical reference rather than for
playing, you leave everything out.  Unless it is important to convey a
canonical _reading_ of the original (since you probably justly consider
your own reading more informed than that of the typical reader) rather
than just a reproduction.

-- 
David Kastrup