Courtesy accidental for tied notes on line break
The part highlighted in red could be implemented, maybe with a On/Off option in the Style settings.
Especially useful in complex music with lots of accidentals.
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
That's a good idea. I'm afraid it might not be all that easy, since at the point where we are deciding what accidentals, we don't know if the measures are on different systems or not - in fact, we can't know for sure until after we've placed all the accidentals, since they affect spacing.
On the other hand, right now, I don't see a way to do this even manually. Adding a courtesy accidental to the second note deletes the tie, and adding the tie back deletes the courtesy accidental. That much seems like a bug and should be fixed at some point.
In reply to That's a good idea. I'm by Marc Sabatella
Add the accidental sign manually from the Symbols menu of the Master Palette (Shift+F9).
In reply to Add the accidental sign by [DELETED] 448831
True, that's the workaround.
In reply to True, that's the workaround. by Marc Sabatella
I don't understand why it is a good idea to have a courtesy accidental within the tied group, no matter where it is on the staff. A tied note is not re-articulated so it seems completely unnecessary.
If you are talking about the note AFTER the tied note, an accidental will be necessary if it is an altered note because it is over a bar line and no longer active, but that doesn't appear to be the point being discussed here, Adding an accidental to an untied note will not disrupt a previous tied note. Perhaps I am missing something?
In reply to I don't understand why it is by xavierjazz
I don't think you misunderstand - unless I too have misunderstood!
My understanding (per the original post and discussion so far): the original poster feels it desirable - and cites an unnamed source for support) to have a courtesy accidental on a tied note ... but only in the context where the tie goes over a system break and the tied note, therefore, is the first note on the next system. Presumably, in that context, one might overlook the tie and forget that an accidental had been applied to the note in the previous measure (at the end of the system directly above).
That said, my 'understanding' only extends to the situation presented - not to the need for a courtesy accidental in this situation. As you say, xavierjazz, the note is not re-articulated - so the presence or absence of the accidental symbol is in a way irrelevant unless one has failed to recognize the tie for what it is. (That could happen, of course, but it would indicate a problem with sight-reading - not with notation. And it wouldn't be remedied by adding a courtesy accidental.)
@255: what is the notation reference that appears in your original post that says it's 'often desirable'?
In reply to I don't understand why it is by xavierjazz
The source is http://icking-music-archive.org/lists/sottisier/notation.pdf
Can't really comment or assure you on the reliability of the document. However I'm 100% sure I've seen it in some scores, especially with naturals.
@xavierjazz: just to be sure, we're talking here about the case where the tie is broken into two rows, what MS calls a line break. In other cases it's wrong, as the non-highlighted-in-red part says in the image.
In reply to The source is by 255
My comment stands.
As to your source, please reference the page number. Thanks.
In reply to My comment stands. As to your by xavierjazz
It's page 8. I wouldnb't say this is a common recommendation, but it does indeed exist in this one. An easier method than manually positioning a symbol does seem like it would be nice. Not sure I'd go so far as an option to display it automatically, but at least, fixing the bug where explicit courtesy accidentals get removed by a tie or vice versa seems reasonable to me.
In reply to It's page 8. I wouldnb't say by Marc Sabatella
There's no need for an accidental, explicit or otherwise. You are misunderstanding what it says.
It means that since the 2nd note in the 2nd bar is also to be flatted, do not make the accidental IN the tied gesture, but wait until it is necessary (for the gesture IN the 2nd bar).
In reply to There's no need for an by xavierjazz
I think you are right! The picture mislead me; I read too hastily.
Then I definitely don't support an automatic option to show an accidental on the first note. But still think it might be ncie if it were possible to add one without resorting to symbols. Much less important than when I thought it was actually a recommendation from an established source, though.
In reply to There's no need for an by xavierjazz
I do not agree.
The sentence inside the parenthesis is a sentence which explains in which case the above statement is not true. It talks about a special case, where "line" is not the bar line but a line of music.
In fact, it is not OFTEN PREFERABLE, it's mandatory to repeat the accidental.
What is OFTEN PREFERABLE it's what I'm talking in the title and in the OP. Which is indeed something optional, and therefore "preferable" or "non-preferable".
Anyway, regardless of that document and my interpretation of it, I'll try to post some scores examples that can support this feature request.
In reply to I do not agree. The sentence by 255
I will be interested to see those scores. Regards,
In reply to I will be interested to see by xavierjazz
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/69058
Page 17.
First line.
The E natural in the left hand is tied to the next line and the natural is repeated for clarity.
I picked up the first complex piano piece that came to my mind and I found an example of this just at the 17th page. So as you see it is not uncommon in complex piano music.
EDIT:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/240448
Page 4.
Second line.
C flat on right hand is tied to the next line with courtesy accidental.
Page 14.
Second line.
C sharp in the left hand is tied to the next line with courtesy sharp.
Last page.
Second to last line.
E sharp in the left hand is tied to the next line with courtesy sharp.
Well, I stop here, got bored. XD
In reply to http://imslp.org/wiki/Special by 255
Yes, those examples do have the markings you are discussing.
To me that looks like a convention that could be supported, although the only reason I could see for them really is if you want to practise a phrase starting on that note. Once one could play through it I can't see it being useful.
Even if one were a sight-reader capable of reading it, the clutter added wouldn't help.
I am neither for nor against the idea, although I generally prefer as minimal markings as necessary.
Thanks for the links. Great music.
In reply to Yes, those examples do have by xavierjazz
Well, there are various methods of implementing the feature.
Certainly it won't be set by default.
In reply to There's no need for an by xavierjazz
I don't think so, @xavierjazz, as that second note - i.e., the first one after the tied note - would require an accidental in any case. It's not a 'courtesy' accidental in that position; it's obligatory in all contexts (regardless of whether there is a line break preceding it or not).
In reply to I don't think so, by [DELETED] 448831
Exactly.
http://musescore.org/en/node/50321#comment-234761
In reply to It's page 8. I wouldnb't say by Marc Sabatella
Has a feature been implemented for this? If it's being considered could I ask that Gould page 112 is followed ie the accidental for a tie across a system break is repeated in paretnheses.
In reply to Has a feature been… by richardm999
I agree it would be a good feature. I don't see an official suggestion in the issue tracker - would you mind filing one?
In reply to I agree it would be a good… by Marc Sabatella
Done!
https://musescore.org/en/node/288205
In reply to Done! https://musescore.org… by richardm999
Or better #288205: Provide courtesy accidentals on ties crossing a system break.
I also had the same problem in a recent score...
I want to include a bracketed accidental just as a matter of courtesy and also to remind the musician that the accidental will continue to apply to the tied measure. It was only necessary because there was a line break.
And like you said, if I put in a courtesy accidental, it negated the tie. If I put in the tie, it refused to reiterate the accidental.
Because it's a final layout issue, it's the kind of thing that should only be activated manually; it doesn't hafta be an automatic function, AFAIC.
In reply to I also had the same problem by harbinger
Maybe not by default, but I think it should be set by the user to be automatic if he wants.
Exactly because it's about the layout: if you're writing a piece from scratch (not transcribing from some existing source), you may not know where a line break will happen.
So you can't be expected to put the symbol manually and/or remove it everytime the layout changes.
Bump since working towards 3.0 and so I guess adding features is ok
In reply to Bump since working towards by 255
The problem that prevented you from adding that courtesy accidental (mentioned above: https://musescore.org/en/node/50321#comment-234351) has been fixed.
In reply to The problem that prevented by Isaac Weiss
No, it is not.
In reply to No, it is not. by 255
It is fixed. See #111116: Cannot add courtesy accidentals for a tied note.
It will be in MuseScore 3 or 2.0.4
In reply to It is fixed. See #111116: by [DELETED] 5
Yes but is this
And we should actually consider doing it automatically in the case where the second measure starts a new system, as per [#50321].
done? As per this thread OP.