[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patch: tie-ing enharmonic variants

From: Kilian A. Foth
Subject: Re: Patch: tie-ing enharmonic variants
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:37:48 +0100

Paul Scott writes:
 > Kilian A. Foth wrote:
 > >Greetings,
 > >
 > >a while back I asked lilypond-user how to engrave a tie between
 > >enharmonic variants, such as g sharp in one bar and a flat in the next
 > >after a key change. The reponse was that not only does lilypond not do
 > >this, but you cannot even typeset the tie manually by \overriding
 > >something. I was also told that there had been a discussion about the
 > >question previously, but I cannot find it in the archives - therefore
 > >allow me to make my proposition here.
 > >
 > >I feel that lilypond should not silently refuse to tie enharmonic
 > >variants if the user explicitly requests it. Choral music is
 > >frequently notated like this, to help singers through key changes that
 > >involve shifting from sharp to flat or vice versa. In keyboard music,
 > >there is no difference between enharmonic variants at all, since there
 > >is only one key for both. I therefore propose the following patch:
 > >  
 > >
 > What's wrong with just using a slur which should look identical to what 
 > you want?

Using a slur fails if you want to tie a chord, because it generates
only one slur instead of four. 

It is also conceptually wrong, since tieing and phrasing are very
different from each other, and one often wants to typeset a slur over
a phrase that already contains ties; this is not possible if you
fake a tie with a slur.

Finally, as I said, I feel that it is a Bad Thing to refuse to
generate ties that were explicitly requested, because that means that
best practices in choral notation cannot be followed.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]