Thanks, but I'm not sure I completely understand. What you're saying is
that if you don't define a voice immediately, you still get one, but
its name is nothing ("")? So in my multi-voice segment I can explicitly
reference the voice-with-no-name as you are showing with the \voices
construct? That makes sense, if that's correct.
Thank you,
-Tom
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:17 AM Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> > This does not work: << { d1~ } \\ {g1} >> | d1 | No tie appears
> > and I don't see anything like an error or warning that I can do
> > anything with. I can rewrite to have an empty second voice in that
> > second measure, but maybe it's feasible to do it some other way?
>
> If the un-named implicit voice already exists (i.e. if you're not right
> at the beginning of a piece, or if you did an explicit \new Voice { ...
> }), then you can do:
>
> \version "2.22"
>
> \new Staff {
> a'1
> \voices "",2 <<
> d''1~ \\
> { g'2 g' }
> >>
> d''1
> }
>
> With "\voices" you can define the names of the voices used by the << \\
> >> construct.
>
> Lukas
>
>
