lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain styles


From: David Nalesnik
Subject: Re: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain styles
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 07:09:30 -0500




On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:04 AM, David Nalesnik <address@hidden> wrote:



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:


So what about

{ { fis'8 r8 r4 r4 r8 fis'8 } \\ { r8 cis'8 f' r2 } } ?

I think you mean

 << { fis'8 r8 r4 r4 r8 fis'8 } \\ { r8 cis'8 f' r2 } >>


Should neo-modern-voice really consider the second fis'8 a repetition of
the first one?  I think that's stretching it.  A lot.


Well, that example certainly would be.  Take neo-modern and neo-modern-cautionary out of the mix.  My observation holds for neo-modern and dodecaphonic-no-repeat, which both operate at a staff level.


In any case, the method of determining automatic accidentals should take into account more than local alterations and the key signature. 


reply via email to

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