Re: How to double in octaves

[Paul Scott]

Daniel Ashton wrote:

> Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>
>  
>
> > This is the desired behaviour! If you have chords of music that 
> > really belong to one and the same voice, you should only have one 
> > slur. 
> Well, um, I'm not sure.  Here is a scan showing where I got my "bad"
> ideas.  http://daniel.ashtonfam.org/Dix-Bass.gif
These are ties not slurs.  Do you have an example with slurs?

> Knowing something of the intention of this music, the editing looks
> right to me, i.e. stems joined, slurs on both noteheads.  As a tubaist
> playing either line, I shouldn't have to watch for slurs on the other
> noteheads.
>
> What do you think?
I think there are two scenarios here.  The first is a desire to 
reproduce existing parts.  That might need to follow existing 
conventions.  The second is writing new legible parts.  With this we can 
take advantage of computers to save work and produce very legible 
parts.  I don't think there really any absolute rules for Daniel's 
question.  Of course that doesn't address the effort to program Lily to 
do the work.

I find that when parts are far apart (like the octaves in the example) 
that I would prefer that phrasing and articulation marks are near the 
noteheads or at least the stems meant for that player.  I am more likely 
to misread things when my eye has to make too much travel.

Paul Scott