Re: tie over clef change

[Hans Åberg]

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 22:17, Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>>> It is common, for example, for a composer to write D sharp for some
>>> instruments and E flat for others.
>> 
>> A composer should write so that it becomes easy for the musician to
>> perform, otherwise they will have to edit the score, which costs
>> time and money.  The musicians then listens to the other musicians
>> and adapt so it sounds right—this is what one of my flute teachers
>> said, who sits in an opera here.  Or modern composers just haven't
>> checked it out. Some do, though.
> 
> Well, almost all orchestra musicians think linearly, this is,
> horizontally, not vertically.  Consequently, composers (at least up to
> the late romantic era) write music that can be easily read linearly.
> This is what sometimes leads to have d sharp and e flat at the same
> time.

Right. For example, on older clarinets, it was difficult to switch between 
flats and sharps, having B♭ and A clarinets, so it must be written for that. 
With modern mechanics, it does not matter so much.

> Hans, please note that your opinion is that of a minority IMHO.  

You are free to implement whatever you like, as you are ones doing it.

> In
> all classical, romantic, or impressionistic scores that I'm aware of,
> pitches of enharmonic changes are completely insignificant.  Musicians
> are expected to automatically adjust the pitch so that it sounds ok
> within chords.  

They will adjust even if it is written it enharmonically wrong. But if one is 
choosing it wrong on an instrument that can play it accurately, one gets a wolf 
interval, which sounds like it is named.

> However, this gets *never* notated as such.

I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as 
diminished sevenths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord

> Consequently, we have ties between enharmonic changes and not slurs.

Whatever.