On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 4:15 PM Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hey all. Ran into a bit of weirdness when trying to do slurred
> chords. I'm wanting a slur between each of the matching notes
> within the chord.
Why slurs and not ties?
> Here's an MWE showing this.
%< snippity
Indeed, this looks like a bug. However, a simple solution is to do
the following – but I guess you know this already :-)
```
\version "2.25.0"
\relative c'' {
b4 b b
<b\1 f\2 b,\3>4 ~ <b\1 f\2 b,\3>
<e,\1 b\2 e,\3>2. ~ <e\1 b\2 e,\3>2
}
```
Yup, thought about doing that. Unfortunately in this case that actually won't do what I need. And here's examples of why. Keep an eye on the tab staff - with these scores the finished version will have only two of the three staves currently shown. The middle one is a temporary I added in for my own use while entering everything. It helps me make sure I'm getting the chords right. The top staff (with the simpler melody) and the bottom staff (the tablature) are the two that will remain when I'm done. And for the folks I'm producing this for the tab staff is the higher priority.
Done with slurs:
And now done with ties:
So, yes, the middle staff works as I would like when done with ties. But the tab staff doesn't. And since the tab staff is the more important one doing it with ties in this case won't work. Fortunately, since that middle staff is a temporary one that won't be in the finished version I can stay with using the slurs to do what I need to do. And it's the slur version of the tab staff that: 1) the locals are used to seeing and 2) is how the original score I'm reproducing is written.
So in this case there really is a bit of method to my madness in insisting on using slurs. Seems a bit ironic to me that the staff that showed the issue is one that won't even be there when it's all said and done with. Ah well. Funny ol' thing life.
Thanks,
Michael