2007/2/13, Jasper Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
Similarly, euphonium parts are commonly written using \clef "G" and then sound
a full ninth lower than written. (To make things more complicated:
they /also/ have parts written in \clef "F" and then sound as written /or/ a
secund lower than written - but if a treble clef appears in the middle of
these scores then it should /not/ sound a ninth lower. And then occasionally
you even see a C clef on the fourth line. Being a musician ain't easy.) In
wind bands, bass tuba parts get an F clef when there should've been an F_8.
In other words: examples abound.
The composers spend their time economically, which is the reason why they use to
leave out any extra twiddling and the reason why Urtext editions may not be
mathematically unambiguous. Not all composers have mathematical background.
For me, traditional mistakes are not a proper excuse for not using exact notation
with computers. If there is an unambiguous way of representing the notes, it should
be used for the simple reason that you have to teach the computer program how to
play the piece. Anything other than exact leads to havoc with computers. If you change
\clef "G_8" to \clef "G", the computer supposes (correctly) that you have changed
the tenor voice into a counter tenor voice.