Re: accidentalStyle choral: too many accidentals in situations with ties

[Alexander Kobel]

Hi,

agreed, this is unpleasant. FWIW, it's the same behavior in the piano 
style, which I based choral on.

I had to make up my mind whether this is intended or not, but the fact 
that making up my mind took so long suggests that it's probably not... ;-)

The key idea of the choral style is to make sure that both singers (many 
following only one voice, but some referring to their neighbors at least 
occasionally) and instrumentalists (especially piano players for colla 
parte) have common and distinct notes highlighted. Unfortunately, the 
common practice of not repeating accidentals for tied notes intervenes here.
I was wondering if, for that purpose, the lower left (tied) cis4 should 
get a sharp, and both cis4 on the second beat would be shown without 
accidentals. The top left sharp is forced, hence not printing the lower 
left one might be misleading for a top-staff singer suddenly 
double-checking whether his colleagues downstairs have the same note. On 
the other hand, showing a sharp there makes the tie look like a slur for 
the bottom-staff singer, which is arguably even worse. And of course a 
multi-staff following musician is expected to know the measure before 
and to realize the meaning of the tie.
But if the lower left sharp is omitted, the lower right one is forced, 
and then printing the top right one kinda fits the intention of the 
choral style. Also, it's cautionary, as choral-cautionary shows.

Independent of "intended or not": it's ugly, I have to admit.

In any case, I don't really see a quick fix (on my Scheme level, at 
least). And I agree that, at least for piano and piano-cautionary, it's 
a clear case of undesired behavior.


Cheers,
Alex


On 2020-04-16 15:26, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I found a kind of situation in which the ‘choral’ accidental style 
> produces too many accidentals:
>
> \version "2.19.84"
>
> \new ChoirStaff \with {
>    \accidentalStyle choral
> } <<
>    { cis'1 4 4 }
>    { cis'1~4 4 }
>  >>
>
> See attachment for output: the last note in the top staff shouldn’t get 
> an accidental.
>
> Due to an unrelated issue, I couldn’t test 2.21.0, but I guess there’s 
> no reason why it would be different.
>
> Best, Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond