Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break

[Robert Schmaus]

> By hiding the accidental after the break, I introduce [unnecessary]
> ambiguity at the beginning of the system, which can only be resolved by
> looking backwards to the end of the last system — it is precisely for
> this reason that Gould (and many others) suggest repeating the
> accidental after a line break.

The most precise and least ambiguous way would be, to always use 
dodecaphonic accidental style ...

I think the point in question is not what is least ambiguous but rather 
what is standard in certain styles. In Jazz - and apparently in Latin 
Music too - the standard seems to be different from what Gould suggests.
I can't speak for Latin Music but in Jazz, the musician has to be aware 
of the harmonic context he's acting in. There's still ample space for 
ambiguity (think e.g. of a C7#9 chord - contains E as 3rd and Eb as #9), 
but in case a Eb should be tied across a break, followed by an E, Jazz 
notation would probably put a (cautionary) natural in front of the E 
rather than a Eb in front of the first Eb of that bar. I can't provide a 
music-theoretical source for this, but I've attached an example picked 
from a regular jazz music book: The piece is written in C, and you can 
see C# tied to the last staff in the screen shot. In the 3rd bar of that 
last staff, there's a C - with a natural in front of it even though the 
piece doesn't have any accidentals ...

I'd like to add that I never had any problem with the way Lilypond 
behaves, there's just no single valid style.

Screen Shot 2013-03-26 at 9.06.09 PM.png
Description: PNG image