Quoting the whole thing, out of my own bone laziness:
=====================================
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 11:24:18AM +0100, Werner Icking wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:09:13 +0100
> > From: Dirk Lattermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > consider the case
> > gis2 gis ~ | gis gis4 gis |
> >
> > in many occurences of printed music, I see a sharp sign
> > on the first and the fourth gis, i.e., the note tied to
> > the left "remembers" the accidental from the previous bar,
> > but the first note thereafter sets it anew for the current bar.
>
> If I had to typeset this the result would be:
>
> #g2 #g2 ~ | g2 #g4 g4 |
>
Thank you!
>
> But this is a special example, because there are no other notes
> between the many gis. Consider a lot of 1/16th "gis a b gis ..."
> where succeeding gis are tied. This would be typeset:
>
> #g a b g~g a b g~g a b #g~ | g a b #g~g a b g~g a b #g~ | g ...
> ^ ^
> | + required because up to now
> | there is no g-sharp in this
> | bar.
> + must be here because of the tie into
> the next bar. Without the tie the next
> g would get the sharp. Because of the
> tie this has to be moved in front of
> the tie.
I disagree. I think the tieing of the g-sharp to the next bar
should not affect its accidental. The only reason to add
an extra sharp here is because one might think the bar (or the bars)
are too long for the reader to remember the acc, or
(more justly) because of the harmonic situation at this spot.
For example, if between now and the previous g-sharp we have
modulated to a key that doesn't contain g-sharp and back.
In both cases, the sharp should be forced by using the gis! syntax.
>
> An example can be found in Bach's Ouvertüre No. 3 (Suite Nr. 3)
> first movement, violin I, bar 59-60
>
> e16 d c d e d c b a8 f+ b- #d ~ | d f a- #d~d f b- d | ...
> ^^^ ^^^
This looks like theres a sharp at the end of the first bar
because it's the first d-sharp in it (not knowing the music
well, assuming it's D-major).
>
> Some editors repeat the moved accidental as cautionary accidental
> if there is a line-break. I don't like that behaviour, because
> e.g. in the above example which is in D-major the signature
> #f #c is immediately followed by (#d), which is hard to read.
Actually, I like this behaviour :-) . Maybe it depends on the
spacing after the line key signs? I've never found it hard to
read, esp. not harder than the accidental before an untied note
there.
>
> -- Werner Icking
Dirk.
-------------(end of quote)
---------------------------
I think you miss the point. No new accidental is *required* following a
tied altered note in the measure, unless there be an unaltered
corresponding note in another part, and that new accidental should be in
the form (#) even if (which is the worst case) there is an altered prime
interval (or two). The usages which you are disputing stem from the time
when, if only the lowest note of a given pitch were altered in a chord,
that alteration counted for the same named note in all the octaves
above. Please don't build into the program the fruit of obsolete
practices. Use the (#) for *all* reminders, so that it is clear that
they are reminders. It has never been illegal to include supererogatory
accidentals, but why do it when you can (#) instead, the way Schott
does?
If you can use (#) next to a key signature because the note would be
sharp anyway, it's Christmas. A gift. (not poison!) Take it. But
starting a staff with a centerline Bb in the key of C, I've always
merely given it a little more distance from the clef. IMHO using (b) for
that would be a welcome innovation. Test it:
* Is it clearer than not doing it?
* Does it reduce the probability of error?
* Does it require new symbols or is it a better use of old ones?
* How could anyone fail to understand it?
You are wasting your time consulting authorities. They were looking for
clever solutions to puzzles, not ways of preventing the problems from
arising. That is why *all* of us seem so very much smarter than they.
:-)
