Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

[Aaron Hill]

On 2019-01-04 9:12 am, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:45 PM Thomas Morley <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
> > A dot is missing.
> > That's because the two dots are of the two aes2. are joined into one
> > single dot. Which is hidden by \hideNotes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >   Harm
>
> holy moly, this way of notating is so wrong I had no idea what was 
> actually
> going on. So, what's happening here is that the aes and the ees both 
> start
> on the first beat? They're simultaneous, but offset horizontally and 
> with
> their stems pointing opposite from normal?

I believe this is a 3/4 measure where each note begins on subsequent 
beats and is sustained for the remaining beats.  That is, it is a slowly 
arpeggiated chord.

You could probably write it...

    { <aes,~>4 <aes,~ ees~> <aes, ees, bes> }

...to better show the progressive building of the chord with the 
drawback that it is visually more dense with all of the extra notes and 
ties.  I think the original engraver wanted a way to save ink.

> Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good 
> notation
> practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought the 
> bar
> was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.

Unless someone is doing academic work where it is critical for the 
typesetting to precisely match that of a reference work, all new 
typesetting ideally should follow the current wisdom of notation.  There 
is little reason to continue to propagate archaic and non-standard 
practices, especially if they are more likely to cause confusion.

Go to the pub and have a beer.  Hopefully the rest of your day can be 
salvaged.

-- Aaron Hill