Bug in ties over barlines
I have (I believe) found a bug in Lilypond, and I am fairly sure what
it is, but I would like to check with people who have better knowledge
of music theory than I before I submit it to the bug list. In the
following code:
{
\time 4/4
aes'1( a')
aes'~ aes'
aes'( aes')
}
I believe that the first and third ties are displayed incorrectly.
Specifically, the first tie should have a natural in front of the
second note, and the third tie should not have a flat in front of the
second note.The second and third ties should be identical, except for
the type of tie used, while the first one should be different. Am I
correct?
Thanks,
Joe
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
2011/1/23 Joseph Haig :
> I have (I believe) found a bug in Lilypond, and I am fairly sure what
> it is, but I would like to check with people who have better knowledge
> of music theory than I before I submit it to the bug list. In the
> following code:
>
> {
> \time 4/4
> aes'1( a')
> aes'~ aes'
> aes'( aes')
> }
>
> I believe that the first and third ties are displayed incorrectly.
They are slurs (the ones made with parentheses). Slurs and ties look
the same, but musically and logically they are quite different.
> Specifically, the first tie should have a natural in front of the
> second note,
Yes, i think that there should be a natural (perhaps parenthesized)
here - to make sure that noone mistakes this slur for a tie.
> and the third tie should not have a flat in front of the
> second note.The second and third ties should be identical, except for
> the type of tie used, while the first one should be different. Am I
> correct?
No, here you are not right in my opinion. There is simply no reason to
put a slur here, you should write aes'~ aes' and not bother with ( ).
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
On Jan 23, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Joseph Haig wrote:
> I have (I believe) found a bug in Lilypond, and I am fairly sure what
> it is, but I would like to check with people who have better knowledge
> of music theory than I before I submit it to the bug list. In the
> following code:
>
> {
>\time 4/4
>aes'1( a')
>aes'~ aes'
>aes'( aes')
> }
>
> I believe that the first and third ties are displayed incorrectly.
> Specifically, the first tie should have a natural in front of the
> second note, and the third tie should not have a flat in front of the
> second note.The second and third ties should be identical, except for
> the type of tie used, while the first one should be different. Am I
> correct?
In short, no. There is a difference between a tie, interpreted by lilypond with
the ~ symbol, and a slur, interpreted in lilypond by the ( ) symbols. You can
find more information about the differences between them in your music theory
books, but in short:
• A tie is used to connect the same note : { a2~ a }
• A slur is used to connect different notes: { g2( a) }
• When a note which has been modified by an accidental has a tie, it usually
does not receive another accidental: { aes2~ aes }
• Accidentals usually only affect notes in one measure: { aes1 | a }
° The preceding holds true even if the notes are connected by a slur: { aes1(
| a) }
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
On 23 January 2011 23:09, Joseph Haig wrote:
>
> I have (I believe) found a bug in Lilypond, and I am fairly sure what
> it is, but I would like to check with people who have better knowledge
> of music theory than I before I submit it to the bug list. In the
> following code:
>
> {
>\time 4/4
>aes'1( a')
>aes'~ aes'
>aes'( aes')
> }
>
> I believe that the first and third ties are displayed incorrectly.
Nope.
LilyPond is right!
First and third ties are not ties, they are slurs. Hence you use '( )'
instead of '~'.
> Specifically, the first tie should have a natural in front of the
> second note,
Nope.
Usual rules specify that an accidental is only valid within _one_
(the current) measure[1]. The second a') (in the second measure) is not
in the same measure, so no need to print the natural.
However it is common practice to add a reminder accidental or a
cautionary accidental (i.e., an accidental within parentheses) in the
second measure.
Hence it is important to make the distinction between a tie and a slur.
Slurs have no rhythmic meaning, contrary to ties.
There is a big warning about this in the notation reference manual.
BTW if you replace your slur by a tie you would get a warning and the
tie would not be printed!
> and the third tie should not have a flat in front of the
> second note.
That would be true if you used a tie, not a slur (like in your second,
real, tie).
> The second and third ties should be identical, except for
> the type of tie used, while the first one should be different. Am I
> correct?
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
2011/1/23 Xavier Scheuer :
> On 23 January 2011 23:09, Joseph Haig wrote:
>> {
>> \time 4/4
>> aes'1( a')
>> aes'~ aes'
>> aes'( aes')
>> }
>>
>> I believe that the first and third ties are displayed incorrectly.
>> Specifically, the first tie should have a natural in front of the
>> second note,
>
> Nope.
> Usual rules specify that an accidental is only valid within _one_
> (the current) measure[1]. The second a') (in the second measure) is not
> in the same measure, so no need to print the natural.
I don't agree. *Theoretically* accidental is not needed, but if it
would be omitted, how can you tell the difference between aes~ | aes
and aes( | a) ?
In my opinion accidental here is necessary (surely it may be
parenthesized). If it's necessary, it should be printed automatically
in my opinion.
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
- Original Message - From: "Jan Warchoł" I don't agree. *Theoretically* accidental is not needed, but if it would be omitted, how can you tell the difference between aes~ | aes and aes( | a) ? In my opinion accidental here is necessary (surely it may be parenthesized). If it's necessary, it should be printed automatically in my opinion. cheers, Janek If you use #(set-accidental-style 'modern-cautionary) then you get the parenthesised accidental automatically, as requested. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
Thanks to everyone who responded and explained that Lilypond's behaviour is correct, and that it is possible to use set-accidental-style to get the behaviour I expected. I agree with Janek that the theoretically correct behaviour can be confusing but I understand better now the differences between ties and slurs. On 24 January 2011 08:54, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Jan Warchoł" > > >> I don't agree. *Theoretically* accidental is not needed, but if it >> would be omitted, how can you tell the difference between aes~ | aes >> and aes( | a) ? >> In my opinion accidental here is necessary (surely it may be >> parenthesized). If it's necessary, it should be printed automatically >> in my opinion. > >> cheers, >> Janek > > If you use > > #(set-accidental-style 'modern-cautionary) > > then you get the parenthesised accidental automatically, as requested. > > > -- > Phil Holmes > > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
Hi, sorry for the delay - i was busy making new flags for Lily. 2011/1/24 Phil Holmes > > - Original Message - From: "Jan Warchoł" > > >> I don't agree. *Theoretically* accidental is not needed, but if it >> would be omitted, how can you tell the difference between aes~ | aes >> and aes( | a) ? >> In my opinion accidental here is necessary (surely it may be >> parenthesized). If it's necessary, it should be printed automatically >> in my opinion. > >> cheers, >> Janek > > If you use > > #(set-accidental-style 'modern-cautionary) > then you get the parenthesised accidental automatically, as requested. Indeed, thanks for the remainder. However, in my opinion it is necessary to *change* the 'default', 'voice' and 'forget' accidental styles, because their current behaviour result in wrongly typeset music. If the last note in the following example doesn't get a natural, it's *impossible* to tell that it's not another ces: ces'1~ | ces' ces'1( | c') It may be argued that the slur looks different than the tie, but it's not enough. I'm sure that engraving books will agree with me - may someone check this? cheers, Janek PS By the way, i think that modern-cautionary accidental style prints a cautionary accidental there not because of a potential confusion with a tie, but simply because it prints remainder accidentals in the following measure. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
On 1/31/11 3:04 AM, "Jan Warchoł" wrote: > 2011/1/24 Phil Holmes >> >> If you use >> >> #(set-accidental-style 'modern-cautionary) >> then you get the parenthesised accidental automatically, as requested. > > Indeed, thanks for the remainder. > However, in my opinion it is necessary to *change* the 'default', > 'voice' and 'forget' accidental styles, because their current > behaviour result in wrongly typeset music. If the last note in the > following example doesn't get a natural, it's *impossible* to tell > that it's not another ces: > > ces'1~ | ces' > ces'1( | c') > > It may be argued that the slur looks different than the tie, but it's > not enough. > I'm sure that engraving books will agree with me - may someone check this? I think that it would be fine to have a rule added that says "if we're across a barline, and the scale step is the same, but the accidental is different, and the slur is two notes long ending on the current note, display a cautionary accidental in order to avoid confusion with a tie." But I don't think this is a high priority bug. It's simple enough to force the cautionary accidental in this case. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
On 2011-01-31 11:04, Jan Warchoł wrote:
> [...] If the last note in the
> following example doesn't get a natural, it's *impossible* to tell
> that it's not another ces:
>
> ces'1~ | ces'
> ces'1( | c')
>
> It may be argued that the slur looks different than the tie, but it's
> not enough.
> I'm sure that engraving books will agree with me - may someone check this?
Now that I have a brand new copy of Gardner Read's "Music Notation" in
my bookshelf since just yesterday, I do. I didn't yet read the whole
book, though...
In the chapter for accidentals (p. 131), it says:
"It is not necessary to repeat the accidental before a tied note. The
tie itself serves to prolong the effect of the accidental. The one
exception to this general rule occurs when the note or notes affected by
an accidental and tied over the barline come at the end of a system or
at the bottom of the page."
Which is what we all know.
Regarding slurs, I found exactly nothing. But I'm absolutely sure, if
Read had written anything about it, it would be: "If in doubt whether
the reader will know what to do: make it clear." Or, rather: "Write the
natural, dummy." He constantly advocates the use of notation that eases
the understanding of the music, and disapproves any elements that are
hardly possible to distinguish or perform.
And this may be an example just too obvious that he felt the need to
comment it.
Not that I know a single instance where this occurs, though. In a piano
piece that requires a moderately trained player, perhaps I'd leave it
out; but only in the case of chords which are very clear to interpret.
Yet, in any other case, I consider it good style to write the natural
even when there's no slur. In particular for a single voice, say a
two-note melisma in choral music.
By the way: if you have { r2.. cis8( | c2!) r2 } all over the place,
and then there suddenly comes a { r2 cis2~ | cis2 r2 }, you'd expect an
additional sharp there too, don't you?
Just my two pence...
Cheers,
Alexander
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
hello
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Kobel
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:14:23 +0100
To: Jan Warchoł
Cc: lilypond-user , bug-lilypond
, lilypond-devel
Subject: Re: Bug in ties over barlines
>By the way: if you have { r2.. cis8( | c2!) r2 } all over the place,
>and then there suddenly comes a { r2 cis2~ | cis2 r2 }, you'd expect an
>additional sharp there too, don't you?
Hmm...why not use (in your example) { r2.. cis8( | c2?) r2 } which to me
makes more sense. After all, assuming you are in C-major here then why
would you NOT use a cautionary than a regular accidental. In this case you
would NOT need to put the additional sharp in your second example.
No one (as I can see) has spoken about the ? Vs ! And I think that's the
difference for me. It depends on what is already sharp/flat in the key
signature as a musician. ! Means it isn't and ? Means it is but 'be aware'
right?
James
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
On 2011-01-31 21:06, James Lowe wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Kobel
>> By the way: if you have { r2.. cis8( | c2!) r2 } all over the place,
>> and then there suddenly comes a { r2 cis2~ | cis2 r2 }, you'd expect an
>> additional sharp there too, don't you?
>
> Hmm...why not use (in your example) { r2.. cis8( | c2?) r2 } which to me
> makes more sense. [...]
> No one (as I can see) has spoken about the ? Vs ! And I think that's the
> difference for me. It depends on what is already sharp/flat in the key
> signature as a musician. ! Means it isn't and ? Means it is but 'be aware'
> right?
Ah, good point. I didn't actually think about the ? vs. ! difference;
probably it's just a matter of personal taste of the engraver. In this
situation, I guess both can be reasoned: the cautionary since the key
signature says it should be c by default anyway, and the mandatory
accidental (without parentheses) because tie and slur could not be
distinguished otherwise, so it's indeed at least semi-mandatory.
But IMHO the important point here is the fact that the notation can be
ambigous without the accidental, and is definitely clear with it. No
matter if ? or !.
Cheers,
Alexander
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
W dniu 31 stycznia 2011 17:06 użytkownik Carl Sorensen napisał: > On 1/31/11 3:04 AM, "Jan Warchoł" wrote: >> 2011/1/24 Phil Holmes >>> >>> If you use >>> >>> #(set-accidental-style 'modern-cautionary) >>> then you get the parenthesised accidental automatically, as requested. >> >> Indeed, thanks for the remainder. >> However, in my opinion it is necessary to *change* the 'default', >> 'voice' and 'forget' accidental styles, because their current >> behaviour result in wrongly typeset music. If the last note in the >> following example doesn't get a natural, it's *impossible* to tell >> that it's not another ces: >> >> ces'1~ | ces' >> ces'1( | c') >> >> It may be argued that the slur looks different than the tie, but it's >> not enough. >> I'm sure that engraving books will agree with me - may someone check this? > > I think that it would be fine to have a rule added that says "if we're > across a barline, and the scale step is the same, but the accidental is > different, and the slur is two notes long ending on the current note, > display a cautionary accidental in order to avoid confusion with a tie." +1, except that i think it should be unparenthesized (at least in accidental styles like default and voice, that don't use parenthesized accidentals at all). 2011/1/31 Alexander Kobel : > But IMHO the important point here is the fact that the notation can be > ambigous without the accidental, and is definitely clear with it. No > matter if ? or !. +1. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
