Re: Gould question

[Simon Albrecht]

On 12.07.2016 10:16, David Kastrup wrote:

Simon Albrecht  writes:


On 11.07.2016 22:33, Carl Sorensen wrote:

On 7/11/16 7:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht"  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).

In 2/2 splitting up the beams sub-beat is just wrong.  Now we have the
"unless subdivided" moniker here and LilyPond should likely do more in
_that_ respect.  In particular when beaming over several tuplet groups,
a subdivision corresponding to the number-carrying groups seems pretty
much mandatory to me irrespective of whether one uses binary subdivision
schemes (which I often find overdoing it) elsewhere.


And I’d draw it just below 16th notes.

For subdivision, yes.  But splitting beams completely inside of a beat
does not make sense automatically since we are then talking about a
judicious breach of rules, and that really should be done manually.


Now the patch is on countdown (again) and I have to return to this argument.
It’s probably a rare case that we’re talking about; 2/2 and 3/2 measures 
don’t often contain notes smaller than a 16th. But if they do, beaming 
all of them together without subdivision makes the rhythm very difficult 
to grasp. Plus, as Urs argued, the number of beams retained at a 
subdivision should correspond to the duration of the subdivided group, 
which in this case would mean zero beams.
So after all I still consider this a sensible change, regardless of the 
general rule of beaming by beat („Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel“ – 
‘exceptions confirm the rule’ :-) ).
And now, after writing these elaborations, I notice that the question is 
quite outside the scope of this issue: The previous code already beamed 
32nd notes by quarter note instead of by beat. Tuplets may not even have 
been considered when that beaming exception was introduced, and in fact 
I just lowered the threshold a bit instead of creating it in the first 
place. So I would like to not take the patch out of countdown again.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Gould question

[Sam Frybyte]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:00 AM, <lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org> wrote:

> Gould  question


​I agree, prefer quarter values most of the time.
Jay​



-- 
Jay Hamilton
Sound & Silence
www.soundand.com
 206-328-7694
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gould question

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> On 11.07.2016 22:33, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 7/11/16 7:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht"  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).

In 2/2 splitting up the beams sub-beat is just wrong.  Now we have the
"unless subdivided" moniker here and LilyPond should likely do more in
_that_ respect.  In particular when beaming over several tuplet groups,
a subdivision corresponding to the number-carrying groups seems pretty
much mandatory to me irrespective of whether one uses binary subdivision
schemes (which I often find overdoing it) elsewhere.

> And I’d draw it just below 16th notes.

For subdivision, yes.  But splitting beams completely inside of a beat
does not make sense automatically since we are then talking about a
judicious breach of rules, and that really should be done manually.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gould question

[Urs Liska]

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"  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

Re: Gould question

[Simon Albrecht]

On 11.07.2016 22:33, Carl Sorensen wrote:

On 7/11/16 7:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht"  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.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gould question

[Carl Sorensen]

On 7/11/16 7:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht"  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.

Thanks,

Carl


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gould question

[Urs Liska]

Am 11. Juli 2016 19:39:14 MESZ, schrieb Kieren MacMillan 
:
>Hi Simon,
>
>> Currently, it’s beamed by half-measure, which I think impairs
>legibility, so I introduced a patch changing this to beaming by quarter
>note value (issue 4919). An earlier request for opinions didn’t harvest
>any responses – would anyone like to chime in? :-)
>
>1. I prefer the beams in quarters; or, at the very least, the 16th
>broken/subdivided by quarters.

+1

>
>2. Does Urs’s recent work have any bearing on this?

Apart from the fact that it hasn't progressed to a patch even?

The autobeaming decisions are out of the scope of what I was working on (these 
decisions have already been made by then).

But such a subdivision rule could be part of it, yes.
BTW: I would like to change the default behaviour to have subdivisions turned 
on - an idea that Elaine Gould explicitly endorsed.

Urs

>
>Cheers,
>Kieren.
>
>
>Kieren MacMillan, composer
>‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
>‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gould question

[Simon Albrecht]

On 11.07.2016 19:39, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Hi Simon,


Currently, it’s beamed by half-measure, which I think impairs legibility, so I 
introduced a patch changing this to beaming by quarter note value (issue 4919). 
An earlier request for opinions didn’t harvest any responses – would anyone 
like to chime in? :-)

1. I prefer the beams in quarters; or, at the very least, the 16th 
broken/subdivided by quarters.

2. Does Urs’s recent work have any bearing on this?


Good question. I can only guess that
1) this change only concerns situations with subdivideBeams = ##f
2) the subdividing code has no means of linking groups which were 
separately beamed beforehand. So the ‘subdivision at quarters’ solution 
is probably not possible with ((1 . 20) (5 5 5 5)) beaming.
On one hand it’s a trivial change and easy to undo, but on the other 
hand it’s always an act to shepherd those small patches.

For me, these issues wouldn’t stand in the way of this change for now.

Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gould question

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Simon,

> Currently, it’s beamed by half-measure, which I think impairs legibility, so 
> I introduced a patch changing this to beaming by quarter note value (issue 
> 4919). An earlier request for opinions didn’t harvest any responses – would 
> anyone like to chime in? :-)

1. I prefer the beams in quarters; or, at the very least, the 16th 
broken/subdivided by quarters.

2. Does Urs’s recent work have any bearing on this?

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Gould question

[Simon Albrecht]

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, it’s beamed by half-measure, which I think impairs 
legibility, so I introduced a patch changing this to beaming by quarter 
note value (issue 4919).
An earlier request for opinions didn’t harvest any responses – would 
anyone like to chime in? :-)


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user