tie over clef change

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

tie over clef change

Werner LEMBERG

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.


    Werner

Liszt-Liebestraum.jpg (74K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Dan Eble
On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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?)

Dan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Jean ABOU SAMRA
In reply to this post by Werner LEMBERG

Le 26/09/2020 à 14:55, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
> 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.
>
>
>      Werner

For reference, this is https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/302


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Dan Eble
In reply to this post by Dan Eble


> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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.

Dan

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg-2
In reply to this post by Werner LEMBERG

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 14:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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.

A tie indicates that it is a note whose (time) value (normally) otherwise cannot be expressed in the notational system, thus having the same pitch, whereas a slur indicates an articulation of notes of different pitch, that they should be played together. What do you think it is in your example? :-)


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg-2
In reply to this post by Dan Eble

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Aaron Hill
In reply to this post by Dan Eble
On 2020-09-26 9:04 am, Dan Eble wrote:

>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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.

An idea: Could Tie gain a new Boolean property that controls whether to
slope a Tie or keep it horizontal when the end points do not share the
same Y position?  That would give the user an easy way to have both
options.

A more complex idea: This new property could be a number-pair? that
provides even more control over the Y position of the ends.  Each number
is an index value (e.g. LEFT, CENTER, RIGHT).  If the value is LEFT,
then it is the left note's Y position that is used; RIGHT maps to the
right note's Y position; and CENTER is the average of the two values.  
(Technically, any index value could be used to interpolate the Y
positions.)  Simple horizontal ties that stick to the left note would
use #'(-1 . -1), and #'(1 . 1) would hug the right note.  #'(-1 . 1)
would slope the Tie like a Slur.


-- Aaron Hill

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Dan Eble
In reply to this post by Hans Åberg-2
On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

I see.  Then that's a different case from Werner's example where the pitch is really the same.  So the question is unanswered.

Dan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg-2

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> I see.  Then that's a different case from Werner's example where the pitch is really the same.  So the question is unanswered.

I think the question is answered from the musical point of view: Werner's example is a tie since it is the same pitch, the same note with longer value. In your example, the pitches are formally different, and the difference is a comma in the Pythagorean tone system, so it must be a slur.

I can think of special cases: Perhaps the tie and the slur are rendered slightly differently, say of different thickness, so in Werner's example it should be a tie in style. Somebody might want to indicate an E12 enharmonic equivalence, as in your example, even though it is not so in the staff notation system, and then it should be a tie in style.

One could also slur a series of equal pitched notes and put staccato dots (like a-.) on them (as for the flute). Then it means that the notes should played as close to legato as possible but still can be perceived as separate.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Dan Eble
On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:11, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 think the question is answered from the musical point of view: Werner's example is a tie since it is the same pitch, the same note with longer value. In your example, the pitches are formally different, and the difference is a comma in the Pythagorean tone system, so it must be a slur.

This sounds like an answer to a question I didn't ask.  I don't doubt that the arc in Werner's example is semantically a tie.  What I am wondering is what kind of LilyPond grob should represent the arc, and I'm thinking that it should be a Slur because of its shape, not a Tie because of its purpose.

Dan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Werner LEMBERG
In reply to this post by Hans Åberg-2

>>> 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.

I disagree.  For all practical purposes in standard classical music,
enharmonic equivalents *do* sound the same.  What you are referring to
IMHO is a special case that might be controlled by a flag.

> I can think of special cases: Perhaps the tie and the slur are
> rendered slightly differently, say of different thickness, so in
> Werner's example it should be a tie in style.  Somebody might want
> to indicate an E12 enharmonic equivalence, as in your example, even
> though it is not so in the staff notation system, and then it should
> be a tie in style.

As mentioned above: This might be controlled by a flag.  Or maybe a
special “E12_tie_slur” engraver can handle this.


    Werner
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg-2

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 19:56, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
> I disagree.  For all practical purposes in standard classical music,
> enharmonic equivalents *do* sound the same.  What you are referring to
> IMHO is a special case that might be controlled by a flag.

They do not, and the string section, that primarily stands for the pitch reference, trains to slide the pitch appropriately:

In the video below, time 10:43, Brett mentions that the E (on the D string) against the open G, the sixth, is a bit lower than against the open A; the pure fourth. This is the syntonic comma 81/80, the difference between the Just Intonation major third 5/4, and the higher Pythagorean major third.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9t7Nrin_c&t=643

This is for adjusting towards Just Intonation, but it is necessary for enharmonic equivalents too, as the Pythagorean comma is the microtonal amount they use in Turkish music. A melody line will not sound right if not adjusted.

>> I can think of special cases: Perhaps the tie and the slur are
>> rendered slightly differently, say of different thickness, so in
>> Werner's example it should be a tie in style.  Somebody might want
>> to indicate an E12 enharmonic equivalence, as in your example, even
>> though it is not so in the staff notation system, and then it should
>> be a tie in style.
>
> As mentioned above: This might be controlled by a flag.  Or maybe a
> special “E12_tie_slur” engraver can handle this.

You probably think of how to handle it internally, because syntactically one might just write a tie between enharmonic equivalents.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg-2
In reply to this post by Dan Eble

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 19:36, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:11, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 think the question is answered from the musical point of view: Werner's example is a tie since it is the same pitch, the same note with longer value. In your example, the pitches are formally different, and the difference is a comma in the Pythagorean tone system, so it must be a slur.
>
> This sounds like an answer to a question I didn't ask.  I don't doubt that the arc in Werner's example is semantically a tie.  What I am wondering is what kind of LilyPond grob should represent the arc, and I'm thinking that it should be a Slur because of its shape, not a Tie because of its purpose.

I think that slurs and ties may be rendered equally because of the legacy of drawing them by hand. But suppose they are different, then it should also have a tie look.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Kevin Barry
In reply to this post by Hans Åberg-2
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 19:30, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >>>> 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.
> >
> > I disagree.  For all practical purposes in standard classical music,
> > enharmonic equivalents *do* sound the same.  What you are referring to
> > IMHO is a special case that might be controlled by a flag.
>
> They do not, and the string section, that primarily stands for the pitch
> reference, trains to slide the pitch appropriately:

In some contexts a notated D sharp and E flat are the same pitch (e.g.
equally tempered piano music) and in some they are not (as you pointed
out). Since this is a discussion about ties, where the note is the
same by definition, we can assume we are dealing with the same pitch.
The question isn't whether it's a tie or a slur, but how LilyPond
should render a tie when the two notes are not aligned (i.e. the user
has entered a "~" indicating that it's a tie).

I agree with Gould that ties across clef changes should be avoided (I
personally wouldn't even do it in the Liszt example posted), but I
think LilyPond needs to handle it. I think it's quite acceptable to
detect this situation and switch to using a slur (but I haven't looked
at the code).

Kevin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Hans Åberg-2

> On 26 Sep 2020, at 20:58, Kevin Barry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 19:30, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  For all practical purposes in standard classical music,
>>> enharmonic equivalents *do* sound the same.  What you are referring to
>>> IMHO is a special case that might be controlled by a flag.
>>
>> They do not, and the string section, that primarily stands for the pitch
>> reference, trains to slide the pitch appropriately:
>
> In some contexts a notated D sharp and E flat are the same pitch (e.g.
> equally tempered piano music) and in some they are not (as you pointed
> out). Since this is a discussion about ties, where the note is the
> same by definition, we can assume we are dealing with the same pitch.

The staff notation pitches are different in the case of an enharmonic tie, as in Dan's example d♯ to e♭. You might want to have a tie here to make the enharmonic change explicit. —That is perhaps what you meant, but I find it confusing saying that d♯ to e♭ are the same pitch, because in the case of staff notation, they are not, even though in some music, they can be played the same.

> The question isn't whether it's a tie or a slur, but how LilyPond
> should render a tie when the two notes are not aligned (i.e. the user
> has entered a "~" indicating that it's a tie).

Say the ties are rendered as usual, but the slurs are dotted lines, and the phrase marks are square brackets. How do you want the output to be then?

> I agree with Gould that ties across clef changes should be avoided (I
> personally wouldn't even do it in the Liszt example posted), but I
> think LilyPond needs to handle it. I think it's quite acceptable to
> detect this situation and switch to using a slur (but I haven't looked
> at the code).

So if one makes them radically different, substituting ties and slurs for each other in the output would not work.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Jean ABOU SAMRA
In reply to this post by Dan Eble

Le 26/09/2020 à 15:41, Dan Eble a écrit :

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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?)

If this were ever implemented, I would expect a Tie.The ~ sign
builds a strong mental connectionwith Tie objects. The different
staff positions are the result ofthe work of the typesetting engine.
In my opinion, the type of agrob should only depend on the input.
Note that having a Slur wouldactually break user code in cases
where the Tie is at the end ofsystem and thus perfectly correct.
Consider:

{
   \override Tie.color = #red
   c'1~
   \clef bass
   \break
   c'1
}

Also, we advocate separation of layout and content. It's
better in my eyes not to silently change the grob type if
a clef change is removed.

That being said, I don't think we should have this as a
default, notably because of the ugly output when the tie
is between chords. As an option, why not. I'm not sure
Joe user would look into the Internals in this case though.
I would just change it to a slur…

Regards,
Jean


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Andrew Bernard
In reply to this post by Dan Eble
That can't be a tie because the second note would not have the
accidental, in general.

Gould is not always right in my view.

Andrew


On 26/09/2020 11:41 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
>
> 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?)
> —
> Dan
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

Jean ABOU SAMRA
Le 27/09/2020 à 05:24, Andrew Bernard a écrit :

> That can't be a tie because the second note would not have the
> accidental, in general.

What do you mean? Currently { cis'1~ cis' } produces a Tie object.

Best,
Jean


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Hans Åberg-2
Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> writes:

>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tie over clef change

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Dan Eble
Dan Eble <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:11, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:50, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 12:34, Hans Åberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Sep 2020, at 18:04, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 09:41, Dan Eble <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 think the question is answered from the musical point of view:
>> Werner's example is a tie since it is the same pitch, the same note
>> with longer value. In your example, the pitches are formally
>> different, and the difference is a comma in the Pythagorean tone
>> system, so it must be a slur.
>
> This sounds like an answer to a question I didn't ask.  I don't doubt
> that the arc in Werner's example is semantically a tie.  What I am
> wondering is what kind of LilyPond grob should represent the arc, and
> I'm thinking that it should be a Slur because of its shape, not a Tie
> because of its purpose.

Slur/Tie have graphical function, not musical function like stream
events.  So it's more a question of practicality than philosophy what to
use here, and it could even be something else like EnharmonicTie with
both slur-interface and tie-interface.

Tie endpoints tend to be different from slur endpoints since they
connect noteheads more than note columns (in-chord slurs are not really
a good reference since they currently suck with regard to their
positioning).

--
David Kastrup

123