Re: tie over clef change

[Hans Åberg]

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> In bar 138:
> 
> <jnfkghmffdnbmoal.png>
> 
> Basically that is an example of enharmonic equivalence of diminished 7th 
> chords: The tonal centre in the preceding bars is clearly d (d major with 
> hints of d minor), so the diminished chord in bar 138 is most probably first 
> heard as f♯-a-c-e♭ (with expected resolution to g minor), but is then being 
> re-interpreted (and written) as f♯-a-b♯-d♯, resolving to c♯ major functioning 
> as a dominant to f♯ minor.
> My point is: Even without E12 tuning, this is clearly an example of fully 
> exploited enharmonic equivalence used as a "wormhole" in an otherwise purely 
> diatonic tonal system. There can be no question that this is semantically a 
> tie.
> 
> (One might raise the objection that, maybe, when performing the piece, a 
> slight adjustment in intonation might be needed in the transition from c to 
> b♯. But this can also happen for bona fide ties in purely diatonic music, so 
> that does not yield an argument against the tie being a tie.)

I think it is the last, because E12 was not in use is the music that J.S. Bach 
wrote. The CPP (Common Practise Period) composers are careful distingushing 
between an augmented 6th a minor 7th in chords. There is a slight adjustment 
from the formal point of view, but for a violin to be able to express that, 
there needs to be some pitch references, like the open strings or intervals 
derived from that, so it may be a way to just adhere to formal writing.