Malte Meyn <lilyp...@maltemeyn.de> writes: > Am 21.11.2015 um 20:30 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: >> >>> Thanks, that makes things clearer. This is definitely what I >>> suggested. The "outer" slur is not a tie but a phrasing slur and the >>> inner one a slur indicating the bowing. >> >> That would not make much sense, really. Phrasing slurs in violin music >> are only necessary when you can't avoid changing bow direction, so if >> they are present, they are much longer. >> >> The tied notation makes more sense, indicating that you change from a >> one-string note to a double-stop and then revert back to the one-string >> note. > > I disagree: In Finlandia this note is definitely *not* tied. Obviously > Sibelius writes both a “technical” slur (for bow change) and a > “musical/melodical” slur (not really “phrasing” in musical language > but in lilypond language). > > For a more secure proof have a look at the third bar after rehearsal > mark L: This cannot be played as double stops.
Well, it can. But it's quite awkward. Basically, you have to hold the bes in first position on the A string and finger the rest on the D string. Or, less of a stretch, do the same in fifth position on the D string and finger the rest on the G string. And even if one wanted to claim that as the underlying intent, the eighth rest before the "tied" eighth note at the end would not make any sense. So yes, this particular case does not seem to want ties but phrasing slurs. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
