Am 12.01.2016 um 16:37 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> I see two approaches to this:
>>
>> a) have the number of beams correspond to the actual duration of the
>> note (third attachment)
>> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated as
>> usual (fourth attachment)
>>
>> Any opinions (or references to what the books say)?
> Gould talks about this kind of issue, of course (pg. 165, etc.), but not
> surprisingly doesn’t give your precise example. If I read all of her examples
> correctly, one example she *does* give (with values double of yours) taken
> together with another example on the previous page implies that your third
> attachment (with the number of beams given according to the note value) seems
> correct.
>
> One further way to clarify the beat structure — which is always of principle
> concern — would be stemlets (which Gould also discusses in great detail, and
> recommends in many situations).
>
> Personally, of the four attachments you included, I prefer the third;
> depending on how complex the music is around this excerpt, I might futher
> prefer the stemlet version.
>
> Hope this helps!
> Kieren.
>
Hi Kieren,
thanks for info and opinion. (I really have to get hold of Gould's book
finally ...).
If I'd implement that
\relative c'' {
a32 [ a a r a16 a ]
\set subdivideBeams = ##t
\set baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/8)
a32 [ a a r a16 a ]
}
would give the attached score. Note that the first and third beams are
(obviously intended) behavior of current (and previous) LilyPond.
Best
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
