Re: \accidentalStyle for common choir notation

[David Wright]

On Wed 22 Jun 2016 at 11:30:30 (+0100), Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Wright"
> <address@hidden>
> To: "Jonathan Scholbach" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: \accidentalStyle for common choir notation
> 
> 
> >On Tue 21 Jun 2016 at 14:53:08 (+0200), Jonathan Scholbach wrote:
> >>At your other point: Well, I agree that the usage of the desired
> >>\accidentalStyle can be a matter of discussion. But it is a very common
> >>practice. And there are good arguments for using it (choirsingers often
> >>orientate - consciously or unconsciously - on the harmonies they are
> >>hearing in the other voices.). Anyway, my question was not about best
> >>practice of typesetting but about the realisation of a certain feature
> >>in LilyPond. I would be grateful, if we stuck to this original question.
> >
> >Sure, I understand (y)our problem; I call it "selling a dummy" (as
> >in rugger).
> 
> Not at all.  The question referred to voices and the illustration
> showed staves.  I was checking what the OP was really seeking.
> 
> >>Phil Holmes wrote:
> >>What you're asking for is not adding a natural when there's a previous
> >>sharp in a different /voice/, but in a different /staff/.  As a
> >>long-time singer myself, I'd find that terribly confusing.  If the 2
> >>voices are on the same staff, I could understand it.
> >
> >It seems odd that this should confuse people because it's standard
> >fare in LP's piano music, under "Automatic accidentals" in the
> >Notation Manual. As the effect is acoustic, the staff is immaterial;
> >you might be singing from your own staff or even your own partbook.
> 
> Again, not at all.  Piano players must read more than one staff at a
> time, and therefore an accidental on one staff might be felt to
> affect pitches on other staves.  Singers (like orchestral players)
> have no need to see the music of the other voices (and, indeed a few
> hundred years ago, never did). They certainly have no need to follow
> accidentals in other voices in case they affect what they sing.
> Good singers just sing the note they're given. Imagine having a
> fiddle part with an accidental cancellation shown because the
> bassoon had been playing a sharp in the previous bar.

I find it very dismissive of you to write 'not at all' twice above.
Simon has already commented on the fact that different singers find
their pitches in different ways, even when they are 'good' singers,
whatever that means. (I think here we mean good readers rather than
their particular singing ability.)

But I've just been given a copy of Vocal Selections from "West Side
Story" and I notice there are many instances of added accidentals
(both parenthesised and not) in both the piano and the vocal parts.
Some of these are obviously what I termed acoustical: otherwise why
print B natural accidentals in a song in C major when the singer has
yet to sing a B of any persuasion, and even after he *has* sung
B naturals.

So I think the engravers wisely decided to ignore your pronouncements.

Cheers,
David.