On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:04 AM, David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> 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.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
