Re: tie over clef change

On Sep 27, 2020, at 16:49, Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > Hi all, > > So, I've tried to follow this thread, but with 35 messages, this is becoming > difficult... > > Could someone make a short summary of what is at stake here? What should we > decide? The thread has veered into musicology,

Re: tie over clef change

The tonal center collapse is done purely vocally in an a cappella passage and when the instruments come back in, it's in a resurrection key and instrument groups (like brass) that are typical for it. [...] Here is a link to a Herreweghe version.

Re: tie over clef change

David Kastrup ezt írta (időpont: 2020. szept. 27., V, 22:01): > > Hans Åberg writes: > > >> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: > >> > >>> I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not > >>> yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal

Re: tie over clef change

> On 28 Sep 2020, at 00:26, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: > >>> However, this gets *never* notated as such. >>> >> I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as >> diminished sevenths. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord > I assume you meant

Re: tie over clef change

However, this gets *never* notated as such. I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as diminished sevenths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord I assume you meant "dominant sevenths"? (Augmented sixth chords, at least "Italian" and

Re: tie over clef change

Hi all, So, I've tried to follow this thread, but with 35 messages, this is becoming difficult... Could someone make a short summary of what is at stake here? What should we decide? Thanks, Jean

Re: tie over clef change

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 22:17, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >>> It is common, for example, for a composer to write D sharp for some >>> instruments and E flat for others. >> >> A composer should write so that it becomes easy for the musician to >> perform, otherwise they will have to edit the score,

Re: tie over clef change

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 22:01, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: >>> I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?)

Re: tie over clef change

>> It is common, for example, for a composer to write D sharp for some >> instruments and E flat for others. > > A composer should write so that it becomes easy for the musician to > perform, otherwise they will have to edit the score, which costs > time and money. The musicians then listens to

Re: tie over clef change

Kevin Barry writes: >> Both cases were discussed. For an orchestra they are not the same > pitch, thus formally a slur. > > You cannot make this assumption. It is exceptional to distinguish D > sharp and E flat since most performed orchestral music is equally > tempered. It is common, for

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: >> >>> I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not >>> yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?) >>> in the transition from "Confiteor" to "Et expecto". I mean,

Re: tie over clef change

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 20:59, Kevin Barry wrote: > >> Both cases were discussed. For an orchestra they are not the same pitch, >> thus formally a slur. > > You cannot make this assumption. It is exceptional to distinguish D > sharp and E flat since most performed orchestral music is equally >

Re: tie over clef change

> Both cases were discussed. For an orchestra they are not the same pitch, thus > formally a slur. You cannot make this assumption. It is exceptional to distinguish D sharp and E flat since most performed orchestral music is equally tempered. It is common, for example, for a composer to write D

Re: tie over clef change

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: > >> I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not >> yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?) >> in the transition from "Confiteor" to "Et expecto". I mean, that >> transition is a

Re: tie over clef change

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 20:20, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:31, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: >> >> On Sep 26,

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:31, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: > On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> >> >>

Re: tie over clef change

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:31, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: >>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict,

Re: tie over clef change

Lukas-Fabian Moser writes: >> I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not >> yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?) >> in the transition from "Confiteor" to "Et expecto". I mean, that >> transition is a tonal center nightmare anyway.

Re: tie over clef change

Jean Abou Samra writes: > Le 27/09/2020 à 19:37, David Kastrup a écrit : > >> (in-chord slurs are not reallya good reference since >> they currently suck with regard to theirpositioning). > By the way... if you have information about this, that's very > welcome in

Re: tie over clef change

I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?) in the transition from "Confiteor" to "Et expecto". I mean, that transition is a tonal center nightmare anyway. In bar 138: Basically that is an

Re: tie over clef change

Le 27/09/2020 à 19:37, David Kastrup a écrit : (in-chord slurs are not reallya good reference since they currently suck with regard to theirpositioning). By the way... if you have information about this, that's very welcome in https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5616! Cheers, Jean

Re: tie over clef change

Dan Eble writes: > On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:11, Hans Åberg wrote: >> >>> >>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg wrote: > On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: >>

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: >> >>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE edition of Liszt's

Re: tie over clef change

Le 27/09/2020 à 05:24, Andrew Bernard a écrit : That can't be a tie because the second note would not have the accidental, in general. What do you mean? Currently { cis'1~ cis' } produces a Tie object. Best, Jean

Re: tie over clef change

That can't be a tie because the second note would not have the accidental, in general. Gould is not always right in my view. Andrew On 26/09/2020 11:41 pm, Dan Eble wrote: What kind of grob would an editor expect here? a Tie because it connects notes of the same pitch, or a Slur because

Re: tie over clef change

Le 26/09/2020 à 15:41, Dan Eble a écrit : On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties over clef changes *do* happen and make sense sometimes... I

Re: tie over clef change

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 20:58, Kevin Barry wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 19:30, Hans Åberg wrote: >> The notes d♯ to e♭ have different pitches in the staff notation >> system, which cannot express E12 enharmonic equivalents, so this >> is slur. So it should be a slur that looks

Re: tie over clef change

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 19:30, Hans Åberg wrote: > The notes d♯ to e♭ have different pitches in the staff notation > system, which cannot express E12 enharmonic equivalents, so this > is slur. So it should be a slur that looks like slur. > > > > I disagree. For all practical

Re: tie over clef change

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 19:36, Dan Eble wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:11, Hans Åberg wrote: >> >>> >>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg wrote: > On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2020, at

Re: tie over clef change

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 19:56, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > The notes d♯ to e♭ have different pitches in the staff notation system, which cannot express E12 enharmonic equivalents, so this is slur. So it should be a slur that looks like slur. > > I disagree. For all practical purposes

Re: tie over clef change

>>> The notes d♯ to e♭ have different pitches in the staff notation >>> system, which cannot express E12 enharmonic equivalents, so this >>> is slur. So it should be a slur that looks like slur. I disagree. For all practical purposes in standard classical music, enharmonic equivalents *do*

Re: tie over clef change

On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:11, Hans Åberg wrote: > >> >> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble wrote: >> >> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: > On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: > > What kind of grob would

Re: tie over clef change

Re: tie over clef change

On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg wrote: > >> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: >> >>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: >>> >>> What kind of grob would an editor expect here? a Tie because it connects >>> notes of the same pitch, or a Slur because it connects notes at

Re: tie over clef change

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: >> >> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >>> >>> >>> Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE >>> edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which

Re: tie over clef change

On 2020-09-26 9:04 am, Dan Eble wrote: On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties over clef changes

Re: tie over clef change

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 14:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE > edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties > over clef changes *do* happen and make sense sometimes... > > I still think that LilyPond

Re: tie over clef change

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> >> >> Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE >> edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties >> over clef changes *do* happen and

Re: tie over clef change

Le 26/09/2020 à 14:55, Werner LEMBERG a écrit : Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties over clef changes *do* happen and make sense sometimes... I still think that LilyPond should support

Re: tie over clef change

On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE > edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties > over clef changes *do* happen and make sense sometimes... > > I still think that LilyPond

tie over clef change

Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties over clef changes *do* happen and make sense sometimes... I still think that LilyPond should support that, handling the tie like a slur in this case.