Carl, you wrote Monday, June 21, 2010 10:10 PM
Sorry for the delay - I've been away and it took
a while to catch up with my mail.
On 6/16/10 3:18 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>
wrote:
Carl.D.Sorensen wrote Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:27 PM
Description:
Revised autobeam settings patch -- cleaned up debug comments
in code and eliminated the irrelevant changes in
Documentation/snippets just due to running makelsr.py
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/1667044/show
One or two of the default beam settings might be
improved (while you're changing the beaming, that is - I
think the behaviour below is probably as in the current
releases, not introduced in this patch). The most
important is illustrated by
\relative c' {
\time 3/4
% In 3/4 time never beam an odd number of 8th notes or two
% 8th notes in different beats
f8 f f f f f
f16 f f f f f f f f f f f
f32 f f f f f f f f f f f
f f f f f f f f f f f f
f4 r8 f f f % incorrect!
f8 f~f f f f % incorrect!
d'4. c8 b8. a16 % incorrect!
}
I accepted your statement of beaming rules, since
I'm quite a novice at beaming.
Well, I'm no expert either. My snippet above is based
on Ross, p 92, which says "Do not notate a 3/4 measure
that looks like a measure in 6/8 time." Poor English,
but he goes on to show the first two of the three
examples marked incorrect above, and clearly labels them
as incorrect.
And I adjusted the the autobeaming code so it would work according
to your recommendations.
Today I've been studying books to see what the references say,
because the
new rule I added caused a regression in 4/4 time.
I want to get some clarification. If I understand your rules
correctly, you
believe that
f4 r8 f8[ f f]
would be incorrect beaming, and that instead it should be beamed
f4 r8 f8 f8[ f]
Yes; Ross gives exactly these patterns later on p 92 and labels them
incorrect and correct respectively. That's where my snippet came
from.
Ross, however (1970, page 92) shows the first pattern as "Another
use of the
beam in 3/4 time", rather than as an incorrect use.
Hhm. Maybe we are looking a different editions. All I can
see earlier on p 92 are examples that don't contain rests, and
it is the presence of the rest that is important, since this
causes three quavers to be beamed together, making it look like
a 6/8 measure.
The algorithm I developed to resolve that problem led to the
following inT
r8 f8 f8[ f] f8[ f f f]
where we previously had
r8 f8[ f f] f8[ f f f]
Ross (1970, page 91) shows the following as an acceptable beaming
in 4/4
r8 f8[ f f] f4 f8[ f]
Which would imply the the previous beaming is correct.
Agreed, although I don't think the new beaming here is as bad
as making a 3/4 measure look like one in 6/8.
The bottom line is that the new beaming rules solve the first and
third
incorrect cases in your example above. However, the price of
doing that is
they split a previously acceptable beam in 4/4 time.
Let me summarize:
OLD NEW
3/4
f4 r8 f8[ f f] f4 r8 f8 f8[ f]
f4. f8[ b8. a16] f4. f8 b8.[ a16]
4/4
r8 f8[ f f] f8[ f f f] r8 f8 f8[ f] f8[ f f f]
So are these beaming rules correct, or at least better than the
old ones?
I think they are better than the old ones, but I'd prefer
to hear opinions from some real musicians.
I think here it would be better to break quaver beams
every beat
For measures consisting entirely of quavers, beaming in 6 is far
preferable,
in my opinion (and we've had this discussion before; we decided
that staying
in 6 was best).
Agreed; I suggested this only as a possible way of avoiding
making a 3/4 measure look like one in 6/8. Now you've
found a better solution for that we should continue to
beam 6 quavers in 6.
Carl
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel