At 6:54 AM -0400 4/6/08, dhbailey wrote:
One thing about notation programs (Sibelius does similar things) is that they can be too darned literal in their efforts to help save us from ourselves, even when we don't need saving. We should be allowed to enter a tie even it the two notes next to each other aren't the same pitch (either by design as with enharmonic equivalents or by accident where we felt we didn't need to enter an accidental because visually that's the way it should be), and manipulate it with no hassles.
While I agree, here's where I see a lapse in logic, whether it's computer logic or my own logic.
A tie across a barline carries an inserted accidental from the preceding bar into the succeeding bar, at least as far as the tied note itself goes, right? But if the notation program refuses to place that tie properly just because of a system break, then the tied note is NOT affected by the preceding accidental and is NOT the same note, right? And that was the original problem, wasn't it?
The obvious way to get the program to operate properly, then, is to insert a repeated accidental on the note that's supposed to be tied, right? But even if that makes the program happy, it's poor notational practice! And shouldn't the program recognize enharmonic identity? I can think of fairly normal situations where that's exactly what I would want to do.
I may be missing something. I often am. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
