Re: tie over clef change

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

> > However, this gets *never* notated as such.
> I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as 
> diminished sevenths.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord

I assume you meant "dominant sevenths"? (Augmented sixth chords, at 
least "Italian" and "German" augmented sixths, are identical to dominant 
sevenths without or with fifth on a modern keyboard, e.g. c-e-[g]-a♯ vs. 
c-e-[g]-b♭, but none of them yield diminished sevenths.)

But anyway, I'm not sure that your statement holds true invariably: I'm 
pretty sure that in late 19th century composers like Bruckner, the 
difference between both chords becomes blurry. I will see if I can find 
an example, maybe even older than Bruckner.

On a related but different note, I always found it funny how certain 
editors of Mozart's Requiem, of all things, tried to "improve" Mozart's 
chromatic/enharmonic spelling. See the old Peters vocal scores on IMSLP 
at the end of the "Confutatis maledictis"

vs. the original Mozart spelling (which Süßmayr preserved faithfully):

I would not claim that this change generates any measurable difference 
in what the musicians actually play and sing, but I imagine it changes 
the way they _think_ their lines. In particular, I like Mozart's 
notation for the clarity with which he expresses that he uses the 
diminished seventh as a triple-leading tone neighbour to the ensuing 
dominant seventh - not to mention the fact that this exact device is all 
over the place in the second half of the Confutatis, and it's frankly 
silly to change it just once, only to avoid a double flat...

Lukas