NOTATIO

Is there any rule for this?
For me without slurs it looks better. Thank you for any Input!

Scores with this format (i.e., hymnnals) do tend to bend the rules a bit on this, but for a couple of useful reasons. Most folks who sing these are not professionals and need less busy notation. Also, but kind of the same reason, since music like this is also what is used for the accompaniment, the bottom is much too complicated for the everyday pianist/organist, at least in my church.

I would rather do the top for note clarity, but add a single slur where the lyrics suggest it, like in the bottom example, and only split voices where there are different rhythms, otherwise combine into a chord. Are most people used to your top example? I believe so. Is it wrong? Well, depends on who you ask. Those are my thoughts.

I prefer the voices to be split in hymns, as is done in all the highest-quality English hymnals. It makes reading the independent progression of each part much easier as a singer.

Thank you for your Input, SATB in 2 Lines is static for me now.
What is more readable? I'm split. Because the upper example requires also the concentration to make the bindings through the text and beams. So I would prefer the slurs. But for the first sight, the upper is more clean.

The "slurring" is correct, DePaule, but I am not sure why it is much easier to read the original example above...
Spacing, font sizes, beaming, lines, curves, positions... Sorry for heavy words, but to me it looks that the music will drop out from the page in the second example.

The second example is from lilypond. The first from an old book.
So I have to work on the layout in Lilypond?

There are two issues here: the beaming, and the stemming.

The first example beams the notes according to the syllables of the words; the lower example beams to the rhythmic beat. If you beam to the syllables, then you don't need slurs, because the information is already there. However, you lose the rhythmic information.

As a tenor (and former alto), I prefer entirely separate lines (stems) for each part, even when they have the same rhythms. Notice that the upper example has the wrong tenor rhythm in bar 3.

If you look at books of Bach Chorales written for keyboard, they are written out with separate lines; and it make sense to me to match this. (Closed score is mostly to enable piano-playing of the choir's music.)

The second example needs to have lyric extension lines. Both examples need serif fonts!

Originally, every voice had its own stem, even in keyboard music. Then, purely as a notational convenience, notes began to be stemmed together if they had the same rhythm. But this makes it harder to see music as independent voices interacting to form harmony, and more as a series of block chords strung together, which has a very negative effect on composing in terms of harmonic and rhythmic variety. Now even choral music, which gave birth to polyphony, is often written as chordal blocks, further reinforcing this viewpoint. This is a great tragedy.

John Ruggero wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023, 13:18 Now even choral music, which gave birth to polyphony, is often written as chordal blocks, further reinforcing this viewpoint. This is a great tragedy.

The sentiment behind this statement is beautiful. Bravo!

AFAIK, the slurs actually indicate a glide from one note to the next, and are thus a specific part of the performance rather than gratuitous phrasing.

That said, I think longer phrase-oriented slurs are rarely worth the clutter in vocal music; a good director will often provide that sort of guidance with their body language.