Re: ties with accidental split over lines

[David Zelinsky]

Thanks, Knute.  I missed the part about \shape that it can take multiple
sets of control points.  Clearly I did not read that NR entry carefully
enough!

I am surprised to hear that Lilypond's default is standard in this case,
since I haven't found examples of this in published works, and I have
found a bunch of cases where broken ties intersect the accidental.  But
I'm happy to defer to others with much more experience than I have. :)

-David


Knute Snortum <ksnortum@gmail.com> writes:

> I think it is the slur that is lower, not the accidental that is
> higher, and I think its placement is correct according to "convention"
> (or Gould), but if you want to change the shape of a slur broken over
> two systems, you can use the \shape command:
>
> \version "2.22.1"
> \include "english.ly"
>
> slurShapeA = \shape #'(
>                         ((0 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . 0))  % leave the
> first broken slur alone
>                         ((0 . 1) (0 . 1) (0 . 1) (0 . 1))  % Change
> the height without changing the shape
>                       ) Slur
>
> \layout {
>   line-width = #50
>   indent = #0
> }
>
> \relative c'
> {
>   \clef "bass"
>   \time 3/4
>   s4 s e ~ | %1
>   \break
>   e^\markup{"tie"} r e( | %2
>   \break
>   e^\markup{"slur"}) r ef ~ | %3
>   \break
>   ef^\markup{"tie"} r \slurShapeA ef( | % 4
>   \break
>   ef^\markup{"slur"}) % 5
> }
>
>
> --
> Knute Snortum
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 6:34 PM David Zelinsky <dzpost@dedekind.net> wrote:
>>
>> When a tie on an accidental is split over two systems, Lilypond shows
>> the accidental on both notes (which I think is correct), but then
>> positions the tie on the second note very high, so as to clear the
>> accidental.  This looks wrong, since ties are generally supposed to be
>> close to the note head, and in particular closer to the note head than a
>> slur would be.  But when there's a slur in this same circumstance,
>> Lilypond sets the slur on the second note lower than for a tie, allowing
>> it to intersect the accidental.
>>
>> Was this a design choice?  Is it a standard thing in engraving?  I don't
>> have a good reference (e.g. Gould) in which to look this up.  I just
>> think it seems wrong.
>>
>> And if I wanted to change it, to lower the tie on the second note, how
>> would I do that?  I don't thing \shape will work in this situation,
>> since how would it know which part of the tie I'm talking about?
>>
>> See snippet below.  Screen shot is attached.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>> \version "2.22.1"
>> \include "english.ly"
>>
>> \layout {
>>   line-width = #50
>>   indent = #0
>> }
>>
>> \relative c'
>> {
>>   \clef "bass"
>>   \time 3/4
>>   s4 s e ~ | %1
>>   \break
>>   e^\markup{"tie"} r e( | %2
>>   \break
>>   e^\markup{"slur"}) r ef ~ | %3
>>   \break
>>   ef^\markup{"tie"} r ef( | % 4
>>   \break
>>   ef^\markup{"slur"}) % 5
>> }
>>
>>