Is it possible to start or end a slur in the middle of a group of tied notes? Like this:
No, itâs not possible in general. You can control whether or not the slur should end on the first or last note of the tie chain, but you canât make it start or stop at an arbitrary point within the tie chain.
Put the two parts of the tie chain in different voices. Then you can make the slur end at the break between the voices.
To tie the notes in different voices together, you have to select both notes and press T, not just the first note
I donât know if by âarbitrary pointâ you mean anywhere in the tie, but I meant start in the notes in the middle of the chain, as if it was not tied. Donât you think we should be able to do that? (see Behind Bars, pg. 113, second example, letter a)
Your example from Gould only applies to ending ties âearlyâ, not start them (and also at the end of the first tied bar, not later).
The example below that applies to starting slurs on tied notes, and only gives completely slurred (recommended) or at the end of the tie chain (acceptable), not somewhere inbetween.
As a musician, Iâd be (briefly) confused by such a slur, and have only seen example (b) as far as I can remember (also for starting slurs).
As I wrote, Dorico supports ending the tie either on the first note of a tie chain at the end of the slur, or extending the slur to the end of that tie chain (which is the default), but it doesnât support starting or ending a slur at an arbitrary note in a tie chain.
Good idea!
I know this works, but Iâm curious as to the underlying behavior. I know Dorico interprets a tie chain as a single event⌠how does Dorico interpret ties that join different voices?
Daniel, sorry if I sounded impolite, it was not my intention. I sincerely just wanted to know your opinion, based on that example from Gould. I have Dorico since v.1 and I know all the effort you all put in the development of the software. I am a fan of your work.
Yes, I know, but in this case I am trying to replicate a score that has the slur exactly as the example. Of course we can make workarounds, but I think it would be nice to have the ability to do it without them.
(Villa-Lobos, Bachianas Brasileiras 4, G. Ricordi)
Of course I canât say with certainty, but I have a feeling this would require a complete re-thinking of how it ties and slurs function, potentially. And the workaround with two separate voices is really so incredibly easy, I donât imagine ânativeâ functionality would really make much of a difference!
Think about that: in this particular case, when they add the functionality to automatically create separate parts from just one stave of the full score, the note in the 1st or 2nd voice will make a huge difference. That is why I donât like workarounds.
Workarounds are unavoidable, regardless of how refined a notation software may be. There are too many competing conventions for any program to handle them all. My opinion.
I can see your point on this one, but it still seems to be an outlier. And we donât yet know how condensing will function. Its entirely possible it wonât be strictly voice-dependent, but will display combined staves in some other dynamic way. Of course my comments on development priority and difficulty are purely speculative.
If a note with a tie chain is a single entity, there isnât any âfixedâ place between the end points for a slur to attach to.
Suppose the first three bars of the attachment were somehow possible without artificially splitting the tie into two voices.
If you inserted a beatâs rest before the notes, as in the second three bars, now where is the slur supposed to end? There isnât a ânoteâ for it to end on any more.
If you split the tie into two parts in different voices, there is an âobviousâ way to copy the notation starting at a different point in the bar. The result might not be what you would like to see, but at least it is well-defined!
If I understand the clues that Daniel has given about how that would work, actually you have it backwards: it will create a single stave in the score from separate parts, not the other way round, so this objection doesnât apply.
For condensing to be useful, I hope it would include the opposite as well. Many, including myself, prefer to work from a score that uses combined staves, and generate individual parts later.
Iâm pretty confident âcondensingâ will include generating individual parts that are dynamic (like cues), and take into account score elements like â1.â or âa 2.â
I agree with you.
I see your point.
Dan, we both know we are guessing exactly how it will work.
But FWIW right from the first time I heard about this, my thought was "Ah, this is going to work the same way as the âpartCombineâ function in Lilypond, but hopefully without some of the quirkiness - for example Lilypond sometimes decides to automatically create an âa2â region in the score that is just one note long.
Iâm guessing that in Filipeâs Villa-Lobos example, the slur is drawn that way because the engraver didnât want to continue the slur across the system break for some reason. Thatâs the only reason I can think of for doing it like that, but I could be wrong of course.
Oh, for sure. I just have a hunch there are a significant number of users (the majority of arrangers and composers, I wager) who work the way I do: write the music condensed, and expand later for players. But as you say, itâs speculative.
I hope it wonât just be voice dependent. Especially for keyboard entry itâs often useful to write parts in a single voice.