In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] chemnitz.de>, Joerg Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Dick Atlee wrote: > >> Guido, the F# "error" you mention on the page is confusing to me. I >> have always been told -- and have only encountered music that assumed -- >> that an accidental notation covers every subsequent instance of that >> note in the same measure, regardless of the octave the subsequent notes >> are in. You seem to be saying that someone told you that was not true. >> I'd appreciate some references to authoritative sources on the subject >> before I change a lifetime of (perhaps mis-)perception. Thanks for any >> help in clearing this up. >> > >Before Guido answers this is not his statement, I'll answer this because >since noteedit-2.2.x I'm also a member of this mailing list. > >Indeed, before changing this I contacted a some musicians of the >LilyPond mailing list. The beginning of this controversy was a >composer who was surprised about NoteEdit draws a tie here: > > |\ > ----|-|----O------------|----#--O------------|------------------------- > | / | | | | | | | | > --- |/----|---------|---|------|--------|----|-----------|---------|--- > /| | | | | | | | | > - /-|- ---|---------|---|------|--------|----|-----------|---------|--- > | /| \ | | | | | | | | > --\ | /---|---------|---|------|--------|----|-----------|---------|--- > -|- O | O | # O O > ----|-------------------|----------------\---|---------/--------------- > * - \----------/ > >He declared a f cannot have a tie with f#. And he declared this >is so farcically that he won't use NoteEdit any longer. >He'd rather write the ASCII based storage format of NoteEdit directly. > >And it seems he is right, because there was no fundamental contrariety >at the LilyPond mailing list, although this is a meeting point of >many musicians. > >The main argument seems to be: If the higher notes belong to >an upper voice (soprano) and the lower notes belong to a >lower voice (alto) every musician reads only his/her voice. Thus, >the alto has no information about the f# in soprano. > >The question and the answers can be found at: > >http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-05/msg00306.html >http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-05/msg00307.html >http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-05/msg00309.html >http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-05/msg00310.html > >Note! I'm not a musician and I was never at a music school. So >you can't start any discussion with me, because I depend on >the opinion of other musicians. > >So, if you have a different opinion please contact the above >writers. Or ask on this list. > >But if you mean it is a f#: Meanwhile I'm also convinced >it is an f, because otherwise there are some very complicated >situations. Think about this: > > > |\ > ----|-|----O------------|----#--O------------|------------------------- > | / | | | | | | | | > --- |/----|---------|---|------|--------|----|-----------|---------|--- > /| | | | |O | | | | > - /-|- ---|---------|---|------|--------|----|-----------|---------|--- > | /| \ | | | | | | | | > --\ | /---|---------|---|------|--------|----|-----------|---------|--- > -|- O | |O O | # O O > ----|-------------------|------|---------\---|---------/--------------- > * - |^ \----------/ > | \ > \ > \ > f or f# ??? >
The F as written here is an F natural. The sharp at the upper octave does not extend down to the lower one. However the notation is "legal" notation - the "tie" actually is a slur, slurring the fnat to f#. But at best I would say that this notation is ambiguous and if a Fnat really is intended then I would put it in courtesy brackets: (nat) Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
