The difference between slurs and ties

Yes, ties used to anchor inside notes in 1.3, but I don't consider that a good thing. In 1.3, it was very often the case that ties would end up being so short they were all but invisible (try tying two eighths together). So a conscious choice was made to make them more visible in 2.0, and that does indeed mean they now anchor over the note rather than between them. But they are still not the same as slurs. Ties between single notes anchor about 1/3 of the way into the notehead; slurs about 1/2 way. Ties also anchor closer to the notehead than slurs do, and the shape is also flatter. So ties will ordinarily fit inside slurs. For chords, ties remain anchored *inside* the notes, but there is also code to automatically move the notes farther away from each other to enforce a minimum length for the tie (a Style parameter, defaults to 1sp) so you don't have the "so-short-they-are-invisible" problem.

So the bottom line *should* be that ties look considerably better than they did in 1.3 in virtually all cases. And the settings chosen are in very well accordance with Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars". In particular, the fact that ties now overlap noteheads but not as much as slurs, the fact that ties anchor closer, the fact that ties are flatter than slurs - these are all as Gould recommends.

But as you say, different publishers definitely do things differently, and if you mostly have editions that attach ties inside the noteheads, I guess the Gould-style ties might look odd. But it's not a new thing. I'm looking at editions going back a century or more, and ties over the notehead are found in the majority of them.

Thanks to Marc for his very valuable work on these fastidious details, in particular and among other, for the improvements in the placement of accidentals, which I have highly welcomed.

It is true that occasionally ties were too short in MS 1.3 and having made them easily visible is definitely an improvement.

However, after reading this thread and looking at some examples, I share the concern of the OP about ties and I am asking if it is too radical to 'widen' the ties even when there is plenty of room to have them both visible and distinctively anchored.

An example is in the post quoted above by Marc : in meas. 14 of both versions of Mystic Reverie posted there, the two tied D's look very much as if there were slurred (the difference between 1/2 and 1/3 of note head width is too small to be readily noticeable while playing); unnecessarily so, I would say, as the distance between them is more than enough to have the tie clearly visible, even if anchored 'inside'.

It is true that in most well-known books about notation, the distinction between the two shapes is not as clear as one would have hoped:

In The art of music engraving, T. Ross simply says: «A tie usually extends from notehead to notehead, but does not touch them». Many of his examples show 'inside' ties but other are also 'across'. G. Read's Music notation is mostly inconclusive. K. Stone's "Music notation in the 20th century" says nothing about the difference between ties and slurs, but the examples clearly show a preference for 'inside' ties. More explicit S. Powell in Music engraving today: «...the most common arrangement has ties attaching notes from just inside the notehead to just inside the notehead, while slurs attach from just above the notehead to just above the notehead».

All in all, as the distinction between 'inside' ties and 'across' slurs is documented -- even if not exclusive -- and making them easy to distinguish at the quick glances one can afford while reading music is important, I am asking if it would not be possible to go a step further, for instance:

extend ties into notehead width only if otherwise too short, while keeping long enough ties at the 'inside' anchoring.

'Long enough' and 'too short' are subjective qualifiers, I agree, but I think that a reasonable threshold can be found.

Thanks,

M.