[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-music-discuss] Re: Tie issues...

From: David Raleigh Arnold
Subject: Re: [Gnu-music-discuss] Re: Tie issues...
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:06:01 -0400

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> Not following standard standard practice generates many bugreports
> that the developers (us) have to deal with.  LilyPond operates on the
> principle of least astonishment which means that we do standard
> notation, even if it is broken in some respects.  Different settings
> may be added by those who are interested, but they should default to
> `off'
Standard practice is to write reminders as reminders. You will have to
change it before long, unless you apply parentheses.

If one f in a measure is altered, subsequent unaltered f's are required
to have the appropriate sign in parentheses. This is newer than having
reminders not in parentheses, but nevertheless standard practice. In
HVL, all photoengraved by Schott, you have a change to this during the

It is very desirable that the practice with tied notes be consistent
with that. Consistency avoids bugs, it does not create them. :-)

What if you have two altered tied notes with different time values at
octaves? Better to consider, correctly IMHO, that *all* accidentals
end at a barline, or another accidental, instead of all over the

Mendelssohn used cancellation signs too. Do you want to go back to that?

Bach used a flat sign, not a natural, to change a fis to f. Do you want
to go back to that?

I was being hypothetical when I pointed out that one should be able to
have an unnecessary accidental on a tied note. I quickly found several
examples of it when I looked. It seems to be standard practice to
restate the accidental of a tied note at a staff newline, or at least at
a page turn, which is where I found it in HVL. I think that parentheses
would be better there also, because that is *indisputably* a reminder.
I think that would eliminate a subsequent accidental if the note were
repeated in the measure, wouldn't it? (One more bug down.) Ooops-
2a volta too?

Isn't it a convincing indication that a subsequent note is indeed a
reminder and deserves parentheses, and therefore *that* is standard
practice? :-)


reply via email to

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