|
From: | Urs Liska |
Subject: | Re: Mandatory or a cautionary accidental? |
Date: | Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:25:43 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 |
Am 22.10.2013 11:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:Am 22.10.2013 10:33, schrieb Simon Bailey:On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:thanks for your opinion. Obviously it boils down to the statement that leaving the reminder sharp for the gis' is impractical/impolite but not wrong.i think david actually made the statement exactly the other way around. omitting the reminder sharp may confuse a musician, especially with a forced natural at the beginning of the bar.Rereading David's post I realize I haven't completely understood him yet. First he says it's mandatory then cautionary, responding to different parts of my message. So obviously I'm still not really clear about it.Sigh. You first put an example where after a linebreak an accidental is repeat on a tied note. I comment on that. Then you explain that in the original score you are working from, there is no such accidental. I now make a different statement starting with "In that case, ..." Now you are confused that I made two different statements. I have a real problem understanding the source of your confusion.
The source of the confusion may even be slightly irrelevant because I think the confusion was already there before reading your comment.
If you change the rules according to which accidentals are typeset in relation to your original score, _obviously_ the situation as a consequence of your changed rules is a different one. That was the whole point of changing the rules.
So the situation is like this: a) the tied g' doesn't have a natural:the g' is correct and the following gis' does not _need_ a sharp because 'the bar starts after the tied note' (this is the situation in the original edition, so this is formally correct) b) when I add a cautionary natural on the tied g' (in the new edition) I need to also print the sharp for the gis'
Exactly. That's why I'm actually asking this question. From the readabil- and unambigu-ity point of view I would have managed to do it alone.Again: you are making an editorial decision here. There are several valid decisions you can make. The important thing is _documenting_ your decision so that a) the reader knows which pitch to play b) the reader knows what was originally written The latter point is only relevant when doing a critical edition, and particularly relevant when doing an Urtext.
Thanks again Urs
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |