[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.