David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com> writes:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: guoguocuozuoduo <brian777...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain
> styles
> To: David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com>
>
>
>>There should be for neo-modern, neo-modern-cautionary, neo-modern-voice,
> neo-modern-voice-cautionary, but not dodecaphonic-no->repeat.
>
> For the record, I think that all of the styles should suppress the repeated
> accidental, or none should. It comes down to whether the same pitch
> separated by a rest should be considered an immediate repetition. I think
> so. Consider the following:
>
> { fis'4-. fis'-. }
>
> vs.
>
> { fis'8 r fis' r }
>
> It doesn't make much sense to me that there should be a difference in
> behavior between the two in any style which detects immediate repetition.
So what about
{ { 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.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
