NOTATIO

Any thoughts on the modern french ties, found in Messiaen and Boulez, for instance? At the first look, I didn't like them. Sometimes the visual distance is to huge, and it is hard to understand how long a note should be kept. You get surprised seeing one note more! But in some cases it makes a perfect sense:

I used to use them, as in the scanned manuscript score of mine from the mid-1970s, but not now. I don't recall why I stopped using them – they're in a manuscript of mine from 1989, but not in one from 1994.

OCTO,

These seem to not be 'French' so much as an adoption of the simplified way ties are written in many manuscripts, like David's above.
While there will be certain situations where vertical space can be saved by adopting these in printed music, I don't see the advantages in the vast majority of cases. On the contrary, I find them much less clear, for the reasons you've already mentioned. Based on my current understanding, I wouldn't recommend using them.

David, beautiful score.

I’ve only ever seen them in French engravings. I quite like them for sustaining long &/or complex chords. Mainly they reduce clutter. As a player, you always read ahead far enough not to be surprised.

I agree with OCTO. This is another reinvention of the wheel that is inferior to the original. A continuous tie tells the player in one glance that the note will be continued on; here, there is doubt, and the eyes go back and forth between the two notes involved.

And I think that it is needless as well in OCTO's third example, which could be more clearly notated. If this is a triple divisi for the violins, I think that three staves would be much clearer. If it is necessary to use one staff, a single trill symbol OVER the notes, not after them, would be sufficient, especially given the parenthetical notes (which are in themselves unclear to the players because they appear as a cluster.) But perhaps it is like this only in the score and the parts have three staves?

OCTO wrote:David, beautiful score.

Thank you!

OCTO wrote:David, beautiful score.

+1
Must be a drag working in Finale with such a nice manuscript (although much faster, I presume).

John Ruggero wrote:
And I think that it is needless as well in OCTO's third example, which could be more clearly notated. If this is a triple divisi for the violins, I think that three staves would be much clearer. If it is necessary to use one staff, a single trill symbol OVER the notes, not after them, would be sufficient, especially given the parenthetical notes (which are in themselves unclear to the players because they appear as a cluster.) But perhaps it is like this only in the score and the parts have three staves?

I agree that it is overloaded a bit.

I can also say that I have learned a lot from Messiaen and Boulez engraved scores. Boulez is at UE but yet it is also engraved in that style.

If I had to engrave the third example I would use a single tr~ and the normal ties. In my music I have that kind of examples but I tried to move trill notes away to get the properly connected ties. But now I have learned that just to move the first tie a bit to the right is the best option.

Your solutions sound much better than the Boulez. Here are a couple of other alternatives: