Re: tie over clef change

[David Kastrup]

Hans Åberg <haberg-1@telia.com> writes:

>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <dan@faithful.be> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <dan@faithful.be> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Despite Gould's “incorrect” verdict, here is an example from an old UE
>>>> edition of Liszt's “Liebestraum No. 1”, which demonstrates that ties
>>>> over clef changes *do* happen and make sense sometimes...
>>>> 
>>>> I still think that LilyPond should support that, handling the tie like
>>>> a slur in this case.
>>> 
>>> That's a very good example.  It's hard to imagine any reasonable 
>>> alternative.
>>> 
>>> 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.

We are talking about a piano here.  It has no different keys for d♯ and
e♭ and only a single manual.  A slur even across the same pitch will be
executed with a separate keypress as opposed to a tie.

I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not
yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?)
in the transition from "Confiteor" to "Et expecto".  I mean, that
transition is a tonal center nightmare anyway.

I'd have to consult my score to pick out the details.

-- 
David Kastrup