Re: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain styles

[David Nalesnik]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: guoguocuozuoduo <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Subject: RE: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain
styles
To: David Nalesnik <address@hidden>


>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.

--David