|
Loading...
|
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
[Prev] Thread [Next] | [Prev] Date [Next]
Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Xavier Scheuer Wed Feb 22 15:00:39 2012
On 20 February 2012 00:56, Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoting Gould: "In 3/4, any number of quavers can be beamed together[,] > provided that groups in 3/4 do not give the appearance of 6/8 > accentuation. a4. a8[ a a] incorrectly implies 6/8 accentuation. (Music > from the Classical and Romantic periods frequently uses this beaming -- > the context makes it clear that cross rhythm is not intended." > > 3/4 appears to have 6/8 accentuation when a half measure is beamed > together. > > I would welcome suggestions you might have for a better name. Great! I have ordered Ted Ross and Gardner Read books (not received yet), so next time I will be able to seek myself in these books instead of asking on the mailing list what they say about this. I will probably consider buying Gould also, but later. And I have no opposition to your name, no "better" suggestion either. > I understand your concern, but I'm not overly concerned with this problem. > > beamHalfMeasure *only* applies in 3/4 time, as does beamFullMeasure. > > strictBeatBeaming allows users to change the subdivision to respect beats, > if they want it to do so. It has been demonstrated to produce *no* > unintended changes in the regtests, which do a lot of checking of beams. > > In all of these cases, the default properties produce the generally > desired behavior. Changing the defaults is only required to produce > exceptional behavior. And the change is quite straightforward, and is > shown in the documentation. Thank you for this clarification. As I said LilyPond beaming rules system is really powerful, congratulations. > I'd rather have comments than not, so thanks for your input. > > But recognize that I've spent a lot of hours studying beaming references > and the beaming code, so I tend to be fairly attached to my code. I'll > try to listen when there are suggestions for how to do things better, but > my prejudice is likely to be that things are just fine. Of course I recognize it (sorry if that was not clear enough). I just wanted to make sure all this was intended. I'm reassured and really grateful for that. Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Xavier Scheuer 2012/02/19
- Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Carl Sorensen 2012/02/19
- Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Xavier Scheuer 2012/02/22 <=
- Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Carl Sorensen 2012/02/22
- Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Janek Warchoł 2012/02/22
- Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Carl Sorensen 2012/02/22
- Re: Reintroduce beaming "begin" rules back to solve issues? Janek Warchoł 2012/02/22