When to use tied notes vs. an unconnected “laissez vibrer” (l.v.) tie?

Question

Consider this little passage on the orchestral bass drum (time is 4/4), where bars 62 and 63 are meant to be played identically:

I want to indicate clearly that the third note (second 8^th) is meant to ring on through the last two beats of the bar. I can think of two ways to write this: using a tied note (bar 62), or using an LV tie[*] (bar 63).

My two-part question: A) Which is more appropriate to use here? B) Is there a rule, guideline or other way of determining when to use a tied note vs. when to use an LV tie?

(To clarify: The assumption here is that the next bar – such as bar 64 in the screencap above – has notes in it, as I know you do use LV ties to indicate an instrument should ring on across empty bars.)

---

[*] I’m not sure whether there’s a more proper name for it; I get the name from Sibelius, which calls it an “l.v.” tie (for “laissez vibrer”, or let ring).

Answer 1

They both equate to the same thing. Since there are more notes in bar 64, it might look better to use the first example.

If bar 64 were empty, then the second example would be appropriate if you didn't mind how long it rang on for. With or without the letters l.v., any musician would understand the tie to mean let ring.

Answer 2

Restating the answer of Jomiddnz:

Tie to a note if its precise endpoint matters -- if at a particular point the percussionist should dampen the drum head, the pianist should release the keys, etc.

Tie to a rest or write l.v. to explicitly indicate a fade-out without a discernible ending. The fondness of Debussy and Ravel for this may be how the French term came to dominance in the anglophone world.