[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: tie over clef change

From: Hans Åberg
Subject: Re: tie over clef change
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:11:14 +0200

> 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 an editor expect here? a Tie because it connects 
>>>> notes of the same pitch, or a Slur because it connects notes at different 
>>>> staff positions? (or something else?)
>>> I'll answer my own question.  A tie from d♯ to e♭ generates a Tie grob, so 
>>> for consistency, this should be a Tie that looks like a slur.
>> 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 see.  Then that's a different case from Werner's example where the pitch is 
> really the same.  So the question is unanswered.

I think the question is answered from the musical point of view: Werner's 
example is a tie since it is the same pitch, the same note with longer value. 
In your example, the pitches are formally different, and the difference is a 
comma in the Pythagorean tone system, so it must be a slur.

I can think of special cases: Perhaps the tie and the slur are rendered 
slightly differently, say of different thickness, so in Werner's example it 
should be a tie in style. Somebody might want to indicate an E12 enharmonic 
equivalence, as in your example, even though it is not so in the staff notation 
system, and then it should be a tie in style.

One could also slur a series of equal pitched notes and put staccato dots (like 
a-.) on them (as for the flute). Then it means that the notes should played as 
close to legato as possible but still can be perceived as separate.

reply via email to

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