Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

[Carl Peterson]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:

I have to my right hand "Hymns and Modern, New Standard" and behind me "Songs of Praise, New Standard".  Both of these use separate voices for Sop and Alto; Tenor and Bass.  I strongly believe this is the best way of setting 4 part voice - merging the notes into chords is just wrong, IMHO - it can confuse which voice is singing which part.  What happens when the voices cross? FWIW Elaine Gould agrees with me: "Ideally each voice takes separate stems".  This rule is only broken in her view where space is limited.

Ultimately, for what I'm doing, "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Much like those who are creating custom style sheets to match Henle or Breitkopf or even (cringe) Finale or Sibelius, it doesn't really matter what my sensibilities are or to large degree the way *I* think it ought to be...this is the way it is, and I decide how closely I want to match to it. The fact is that for my target audience, combined stems are the norm, which the noted exceptions of rhythmic differences, small intervals, or crossed voices (see below).

I have made some decisions on some things that are not as universal in context. For instance, some hymnals I use point all stems away from the lyrics except when there are separated voices on the staff (and one has to face in each direction. I've decided against that change, for technical reasons as much as musical correctness. Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the slur). I have adopted this change.

Regarding the confusion, etc.: I can think of only one song in our standard repertoire when voices cross. Regardless, this is irrelevant as the default behavior of the part combiner to separate crossed voices is preserved.