Certain accidental styles suppress accidentals on immediately repeated
notes. (These styles are neo-modern, neo-modern-cautionary,
neo-modern-voice, neo-modern-voice-cautionary, and dodecaphonic-no-repeat.)
When a pitch repetition occurs across a rest, however, the accidental is
repeated: as an o
-- Forwarded message --
From: guoguocuozuoduo
Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Subject: RE: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain
styles
To: David Nalesnik
>There should be for neo-modern, neo-modern-cautionary, neo-modern-voice,
neo-modern-vo
David Nalesnik writes:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: guoguocuozuoduo
> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain
> styles
> To: David Nalesnik
>
>
>>There should be for neo
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, David Kastrup 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 fi
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:04 AM, David Nalesnik
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, David Kastrup 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 } >>
>
>
>>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:04 AM, David Nalesnik
wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
*Arghh* I meant neo-modern-voice, of course.
_
ntext:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Accidentals-on-repeated-notes-separated-by-rests-in-certain-styles-tp164462p164485.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu
Hi Gilberto,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Gilberto Agostinho <
gilbertohasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Concerning the style dodecaphonic-no-repeat, I think that the current
> behaviour is exactly how it should be! Sure, in your simple example above
> the accidental looks superfluou
repeated accidentals" after rests, I realized that they
were pretty much always necessary!
Take care,
Gilberto
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Accidentals-on-repeated-notes-separated-by-rests-in-certain-styles-tp164462p164489.html
Sent from the User mailing li
