Am 12.07.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
> On 11.07.2016 22:33, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 7/11/16 7:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht" <simon.albre...@mail.de> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> what do the authorities say on beaming something like this:
>>>
>>> %%%%%%%%%%
>>> \version "2.19.45"
>>> {
>>> \time 2/2
>>> \repeat unfold 4 { \tuplet 6/4 { c16 e g c' g e } }
>>> }
>>> %%%%%%%%%%
>>>
>>> Currently, it¹s beamed by half-measure, which I think impairs
>>> legibility, so I introduced a patch changing this to beaming by quarter
>>> note value (issue 4919).
>> The authorities say to beam by the beat, which is the half measure. I
>> think that's why the default is what it is.
>
> However, somewhere one has to draw the line – it’s certainly not an
> option to have 16 32nd notes beamed together (unless subdivided). And
> I’d draw it just below 16th notes.
Gould writes (p. 153): "Divisions of a beat are beamed together in all
metres, in order to simplify reading beats". In the following examples
she beams half notes in 2/2 and 3/2 - but the examples only use quavers
and nothing shorter. So I *think* she would actually suggest not to beam
semiquavers or even shorter notes over more than a crotchet or at least
consider that a valid approach.
Actually using beam subdivision is somewhat problematic (although
conceivable). With beam subdivision the number of beams should
correspond to the metric value of the position - and at the crotchet
this is *zero* beams.
Urs
>
> Best, Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
