> From: Dirk Lattermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: tie behaviour (suggested patch)
>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 11:24:18AM +0100, Werner Icking wrote:
> > > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:09:13 +0100
> > > From: Dirk Lattermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > If I had to typeset this the result would be:
> >
> > #g2 #g2 ~ | g2 #g4 g4 |
> >
> Thank you!
There's a 2nd reply which complains about the sharp in the 2nd bar.
I'll answer that with the next example.
> > But this is a special example, because there are no other notes
> > between the many gis. Consider a lot of 1/16th "gis a b gis ..."
> > where succeeding gis are tied. This would be typeset:
> >
> > #g a b g~g a b g~g a b #g~ | g a b #g~g a b g~g a b #g~ | g ...
> > ^ ^
> > | + required because up to now
> > | there is no g-sharp in this
> > | bar.
> > + must be here because of the tie into
> > the next bar. Without the tie the next
> > g would get the sharp. Because of the
> > tie this has to be moved in front of
> > the tie.
> I disagree. I think the tieing of the g-sharp to the next bar
> should not affect its accidental. The only reason to add
> an extra sharp here is because one might think the bar (or the bars)
> are too long for the reader to remember the acc, or
> (more justly) because of the harmonic situation at this spot.
I don't know exactly where I read why the 2nd sharp should be there
(Chaplik?), but the given reason was, that the sharp had to be applied
to the first g in the 2nd bar, because there is no sharp in that bar up
that note. But adding the sharp to that note would be wrong because both
notes in reality stand for one note. So the accidental hat to be moved in
front of this note, the tied g, the last in the first bar.
As a conseqence there is now no sharp in the 2nd bar. Therefore there
has to be a sharp on the 2nd g.
I'm sure that this solution can be found in many, many examples.
> > An example can be found in Bach's Ouvertüre No. 3 (Suite Nr. 3)
> > first movement, violin I, bar 59-60
> >
> > e16 d c d e d c b a8 f+ b- #d ~ | d f a- #d~d f b- d | ...
> > ^^^ ^^^
> This looks like theres a sharp at the end of the first bar
> because it's the first d-sharp in it (not knowing the music
> well, assuming it's D-major).
You are right. But my examples should mainly demonstrate the
usage of the sharp in the 2nd bar which you would omit.
> > Some editors repeat the moved accidental as cautionary accidental
> > if there is a line-break. I don't like that behaviour, because
> > e.g. in the above example which is in D-major the signature
> > #f #c is immediately followed by (#d), which is hard to read.
>
> Actually, I like this behaviour :-) . Maybe it depends on the
> spacing after the line key signs? I've never found it hard to
> read, esp. not harder than the accidental before an untied note
> there.
Imho I don't need it. I need it in front of the tied note, to see
it early enough (playing violin :-) But sometimes I myself consider
repeating such accidentals after the line break. But then I wouldn't
typeset it as cautionary accidental "(#)", but as ordinary accidental.
Maybe I'll look at the weekend for further examples in existing
editions of different editors and read again Chaplik. What do
other sources tell?
-- Werner
