Am 20.07.2016 um 04:26 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > All the rest of the signs are phrasing slurs in this snippet. I would > say it’s also a phrasing slur, and not a mistake or error. >
I disagree. I have skimmed through the whole score, and I'm still nearly sure (maybe now 98.5 % instead of merely 98 %) that this is an engraving error. If I'm not mistaken this is a piano reduction? If that's the case i'd assume there's a tied note or two slurred ones in an instrumental part here. I see two options here, depending on what you want with this score: 1 (the scholarly approach): Get hold of the full score and see if there's a part that warrants the slur/tie. If you find somethign adjust the thing accordingly. 2 (the flashy approach): Use the scholarLY package and produce a nice annotation with footnote. See attached input and result files. Of course you can base 2) on the results of 1) Best Urs > The Peter Pan score seems to be full of such _descriptive_ > indications. Not all scores are entirely _prescriptive_. > > Andrew > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
\version "2.19.45"
\include "scholarly/package.ly"
\new Staff
\relative a {
\clef bass
<<
{
\voiceOne
\criticalRemark \with {
message = "In the piano reduction there is a spurious tie or slur
that spans the whole measure but isn't continued
after the line break"
footnote-offset = #'(-0.5 . 1)
footnote-text = "Spurious tie/slur. See critical remarks"
}
LaissezVibrerTie
a1 \laissezVibrer
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
a,8 r r4 r2
}
>>
<d f a>8
}
spurious-tie.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
