Re: Mandatory or a cautionary accidental?

[Urs Liska]

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'

> 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.
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.

Thanks again
Urs