Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 10:38 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 08 Apr 2016 at 14:04:21 (+0100), Richard Shann wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 07:40 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 08 Apr 2016 at 09:40:30 (+0100), Richard Shann wrote: > > > [...] > > > > style, but something like that with no church rests, numerical time > > > > > > What are these? > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/writing-rests#index-church-rest > > > Misericords? > > Oh, OK. Isn't "church rest" just the literal translation of the > German (in case anyone thought it might mean cherry picker or > something), rather than a term people use? I think so, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a term in English or American for these. So I was speaking LilyPondese, but I think it would be important to include in a modern-style.ily file even if we lack a term for them. Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Fri 08 Apr 2016 at 14:04:21 (+0100), Richard Shann wrote: > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 07:40 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 08 Apr 2016 at 09:40:30 (+0100), Richard Shann wrote: > > [...] > > > style, but something like that with no church rests, numerical time > > > > What are these? > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/writing-rests#index-church-rest > > Misericords? Oh, OK. Isn't "church rest" just the literal translation of the German (in case anyone thought it might mean cherry picker or something), rather than a term people use? Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 07:40 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 08 Apr 2016 at 09:40:30 (+0100), Richard Shann wrote: > [...] > > style, but something like that with no church rests, numerical time > > What are these? http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/writing-rests#index-church-rest > Misericords? > > Cheers, > David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Fri 08 Apr 2016 at 09:40:30 (+0100), Richard Shann wrote: [...] > style, but something like that with no church rests, numerical time What are these? Misericords? Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 08.04.2016 02:42, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: May I be so bold as to inquire, how does the beaming "clearly indicate" nothing more than distribution of notes between hands? 1) It makes a lot of sense to play it that way 2) It was very common to indicate distribution of notes between hands through beaming and stem direction in this kind of fast runs, see e.g. the B flat major Prelude from WTC I. 3) I didn’t say it wouldn’t influence stressing and articulation. I also present the final measure of the Gigue of the French Suite VI in which all of the notes are ascribed to the right hand yet the structure is three groups of four against two groups of three. What kind of edition do you have? My Henle Urtext edition has them beamed six and six, just like in the other bars. And that’s perfectly compliant to baroque usage, to not indicate motifs or stress (other than general measure structure) via beaming. To dismiss the possibility of a hemiola might deny some of Bach's playfulness. As I said: your first example definitely is not a hemiola. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 19:09 -0600, Karen S. Billings wrote: > From an engineering standpoint, I would expect the "default" settings > of an application to adequately address the "majority" of cases, which would lead to endless arguments about which these are, and worse, inconsistency when the majority of cases for a particular feature are sometimes in the jazz field and for other things in orchestral or vocal or ... Instead (IIUC) LilyPond adopted from the outset the rule that it would use the conventions from a perceived "golden age" of music engraving (late 19th c. German engravers). This cuts down arguments but does lead to people complaining when they type 4/4 and get C and so on. I recall seeing an include file (?) called modern-style.ly (or some such) which only contained a flatter slur style, but something like that with no church rests, numerical time signatures, no indent and all the other eyesores (:)) to be seen in modern scores might lessen the time spent fielding this question. Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Mark, No offense to Herr Bach or his playfulness - as an organist, I deeply appreciate his genius - and I never thought my innocent question would spark such dialog. >From an engineering standpoint, I would expect the "default" settings of an >application to adequately address the "majority" of cases, but allow explicit >manipulation to allow the user to do whatever they need to do. I know my >student would agree, especially since he was the one who was confused in the >first place. I suspect the Maestro would also agree, especially since "playfulness" often involves looking for opportunities to break the rules. Karen > On Apr 7, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: > > Simon, > > May I be so bold as to inquire, how does the beaming "clearly indicate" > nothing more than distribution of notes between hands? > I also present the final measure of the Gigue of the French Suite VI in > which all of the notes are ascribed to the right hand yet the structure is > three groups of four against two groups of three. > To dismiss the possibility of a hemiola might deny some of Bach's > playfulness. > > Regards, > > Mark > > -Original Message- > From: Simon Albrecht [mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de] > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 1:47 PM > To: Mark Stephen Mrotek ; 'Martin Neubauer' > ; 'Lilypond-User Mailing List' > Subject: Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly? > >> On 07.04.2016 04:21, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: >> >> Martin, >> >> Hemiola? >> >> Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 - 104. >> > > The Neue Bach-Ausgabe has the semiquavers beamed three and three only in m. > 97 & 98, and this clearly indicates primarily the distribution to the > hands: first three notes sinistra, next three destra. A hemiola is a totally > different thing, where e.g. in 3/8 time two measures are somewhat stressed > like one 3/4 measure. There are different interpretations of the phenomenon, > which mainly occurs at cadenzas. > > 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: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Simon, May I be so bold as to inquire, how does the beaming "clearly indicate" nothing more than distribution of notes between hands? I also present the final measure of the Gigue of the French Suite VI in which all of the notes are ascribed to the right hand yet the structure is three groups of four against two groups of three. To dismiss the possibility of a hemiola might deny some of Bach's playfulness. Regards, Mark -Original Message- From: Simon Albrecht [mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 1:47 PM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek ; 'Martin Neubauer' ; 'Lilypond-User Mailing List' Subject: Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly? On 07.04.2016 04:21, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: > > Martin, > > Hemiola? > > Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 - 104. > The Neue Bach-Ausgabe has the semiquavers beamed three and three only in m. 97 & 98, and this clearly indicates primarily the distribution to the hands: first three notes sinistra, next three destra. A hemiola is a totally different thing, where e.g. in 3/8 time two measures are somewhat stressed like one 3/4 measure. There are different interpretations of the phenomenon, which mainly occurs at cadenzas. Best, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Please ignore this e-mail. I’ve been having problems with my Internet connection and it seemed like the previous one had failed to arrive. Sorry. On 08.04.2016 00:05, Simon Albrecht wrote: On 07.04.2016 04:21, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: Martin, Hemiola? Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 – 104. I don’t quite know how this is related to the current discussion, since this example is clearly a case for manual beaming. What’s more, it’s nothing to do with a hemiola. A hemiola in 3/8 time would be a hybrid between two 3/8 bars and one 3/4 bar, usually at cadenzas. These notes are beamed three and three to signal distribution between hands, and in some way the motivic/harmonic structure. Yours, 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: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 07.04.2016 04:21, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: Martin, Hemiola? Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 – 104. I don’t quite know how this is related to the current discussion, since this example is clearly a case for manual beaming. What’s more, it’s nothing to do with a hemiola. A hemiola in 3/8 time would be a hybrid between two 3/8 bars and one 3/4 bar, usually at cadenzas. These notes are beamed three and three to signal distribution between hands, and in some way the motivic/harmonic structure. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 07.04.2016 04:21, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: Martin, Hemiola? Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 – 104. The Neue Bach-Ausgabe has the semiquavers beamed three and three only in m. 97 & 98, and this clearly indicates primarily the distribution to the hands: first three notes sinistra, next three destra. A hemiola is a totally different thing, where e.g. in 3/8 time two measures are somewhat stressed like one 3/4 measure. There are different interpretations of the phenomenon, which mainly occurs at cadenzas. Best, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
In my experience, at least, hemiolas are the exception, rather than the norm. From the standpoint of a trained musician, I would think that the hemiola should be the exception rather than the norm... or at least that's what they taught me in theory, harmony, and composition. From the standpoint of a working (volunteer!) musician, anything that helps me find/maintain the pulse is both helpful and appreciated. Is it be time to reevaluate the "default" Lilypond beaming for 3/4 compositions? Alternately, or in addition, might it at least be appropriate to include some special guidance for 3/4 "eccentricities"? Just a few thoughts... Karen > On Apr 6, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: > > Martin, > > Hemiola? > Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 – 104. > > Mark > > From: lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of > Martin Neubauer > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:59 PM > To: Lilypond-User Mailing List > Subject: Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly? > > > > On 6 April 2016 at 01:51, Simon Albrecht wrote: > That would be unnecessary. Better use the beamHalfMeasure context property, > which is also explained on that docs page. > Interesting. In my defence I can only say that this wasn't available back > when I started out with lilypond. But I played around a little with it now, > and even though I can understand the sentiment behind it, the behaviour of > that property seems a bit unconvincing to me. (For starters, it seems it's > just a special case for a group of three quavers at the end of a measure.) > And while it's a pretty exact fit for the original problem, whenever I had > the need to alter the beaming I had to resort to more drastic measures. > > Besides all that I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really > leads to ambiguity between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. (For > me at least that has never been an issue.) Trying to justify a change in the > practice of music typesetting (which as such is neither good nor bad) by > accusing the performing musicians of sloppy thinking seems somewhat > irritating to me... > > Sorry for going off topic a bit there, but sometimes my mind just wanders > off.. > > Best regards, > Martin > > -- > homme, ni présence > ___ > 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: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Martin, Hemiola? Cf. WTC I 3 Prelude, measures 97 – 104. Mark From: lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Martin Neubauer Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:59 PM To: Lilypond-User Mailing List Subject: Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly? On 6 April 2016 at 01:51, Simon Albrecht mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de> > wrote: That would be unnecessary. Better use the beamHalfMeasure context property, which is also explained on that docs page. Interesting. In my defence I can only say that this wasn't available back when I started out with lilypond. But I played around a little with it now, and even though I can understand the sentiment behind it, the behaviour of that property seems a bit unconvincing to me. (For starters, it seems it's just a special case for a group of three quavers at the end of a measure.) And while it's a pretty exact fit for the original problem, whenever I had the need to alter the beaming I had to resort to more drastic measures. Besides all that I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really leads to ambiguity between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. (For me at least that has never been an issue.) Trying to justify a change in the practice of music typesetting (which as such is neither good nor bad) by accusing the performing musicians of sloppy thinking seems somewhat irritating to me... Sorry for going off topic a bit there, but sometimes my mind just wanders off.. Best regards, Martin -- homme, ni présence ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Hi Kieren, my naive thinking for a 3/4 measure (or all n/4 measures) was 3 (or n) groups of length 1/4. So I am a bit reassured by your mail that this is not completely ignorant. But of course the beamHalfMeasure is there for a reason and some say, almost every beaming in a 3/4 measure is allowed as long as it does not stop in the middle of the measure like it usually does in a 6/8. (Ok there is a bit more in [1], but what I found for my own education varies a lot for 3/4 measures). One more quote from [2]: > Just to clarify, the Royal Schools of Music Rudiments of Theory book states: > "The rule is: group together as many notes as make one beat EXCEPT if a > bar of 3/4 ... consists entirely of quavers, then all the notes should be > grouped together". (You can see from these lines that I am no expert here, so this is no voice for any direction - just to make that clear.) Cheers, Joram [1]: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~sbirch/Common/Encyclopedia/Rudiments/beaming_rules.htm [2]: https://musescore.org/en/node/9924 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Tue 05 Apr 2016 at 22:16:40 (-0400), Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:58 PM, Martin Neubauer wrote: > > I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really leads to > > ambiguity between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. Apart from the example posted? If you look at the sort of hymns common in the US and written in the short-note style favoured there, then anything that starts with three quavers. Flicking through, I see "O Waly Waly" which is easy to spot because it has a 3/4 signature. OTOH I see "The Voice of Jesus" (not a hymn I know) which has no time signature (mixed 3/4 2/4) so the beaming is the _only_ indication of crochet rhythm. Even the lyrics (underlain, again a US convention) don't help. The two verses start: 1 The voice of ... 2 Chil-dren and ... which contradict each other (no surprise for 1993). These are typeset correctly, though whether you can call this hymn book properly typeset is debatable. Some of the word underlays are appallingly positioned. Then again, these ambiguities are not helped (or hindered) with UK hymn conventions: no time signatures, and longer note values where these anacruses are therefore notated in crochets. But better not to be told than to be told wrongly. > In “West Side Story”, the half-measure beams in “America” indicate where the > measure grooves in 6/8, and the full-measure beams indicate where the measure > grooves in 3/4. (n.b. If I were engraving “WSS", I would go even further and > beam the three quarters separately.) If it were arbitrarily beamed, that > vital information would be lost. I only have access to the choral selection by William Stickles, and the beaming there is excellent: two groups of three in the first bar, three groups of two in the second, and so on. The only bars with single beams are those like e8[ r e r e] r and r8 e[ r e r e] Similarly, in "I Feel Pretty" we have plenty of r4 f8[ f f f] | f4 But—and here's my point—that beaming is only in the piano part, not the voices. Beaming IFP that way would send the wrong message to the singers. The style needs to fit the both piece and the part. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On Wed 06 Apr 2016 at 13:34:01 (+0200), Martin Neubauer wrote: > On 6 April 2016 at 13:23, Kieren MacMillan > wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > when I explored the effect of that setting, I wasn't sure the outcome is > > really that desirable > > > > Wait… is your example **actually** what happens with > > Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f? > > > At least on my computer, yes. I didn't check other versions of lilypond, > though. > > > It’s awful. That should DEFINITELY not be the default. > > > Reminds me a bit of the old quote: "The problem XML solves isn't hard, and > it doesn't solve the problem well." Reminds me of an old New Scientist column called "Nominative Determinism". Or the Ronseal advert: "It does exactly what it says on the tin". Having included it, I guess it has to stay, so it might as well be added to the NM index. > In 3/4 time, my beaming is always in three pairs of eighths, unless the > > following two conditions simultaneously apply: > > (1) all sixth eighth notes are present (i.e., no rests); and > > (2) I want the measure to be felt in one, not three. > > > > Otherwise, it’s pairs of eighths beamed, or single eighths with rests in > > all my scores. > > > That's very sensible and pretty much the same I do for more or less > contemporary music. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Original-Nachricht Hi Martin, when I explored the effect of that setting, I wasn't sure the outcome is really that desirable Wait… is your example **actually** what happens with Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f? It’s awful. That should DEFINITELY not be the default. In 3/4 time, my beaming is always in three pairs of eighths, unless the following two conditions simultaneously apply: (1) all sixth eighth notes are present (i.e., no rests); and (2) I want the measure to be felt in one, not three. Otherwise, it’s pairs of eighths beamed, or single eighths with rests in all my scores. Regards, Kieren. Yes! This is how it should be. Thomas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 6 April 2016 at 13:23, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > when I explored the effect of that setting, I wasn't sure the outcome is > really that desirable > > Wait… is your example **actually** what happens with > Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f? > At least on my computer, yes. I didn't check other versions of lilypond, though. > It’s awful. That should DEFINITELY not be the default. > Reminds me a bit of the old quote: "The problem XML solves isn't hard, and it doesn't solve the problem well." In 3/4 time, my beaming is always in three pairs of eighths, unless the > following two conditions simultaneously apply: > (1) all sixth eighth notes are present (i.e., no rests); and > (2) I want the measure to be felt in one, not three. > > Otherwise, it’s pairs of eighths beamed, or single eighths with rests in > all my scores. > That's very sensible and pretty much the same I do for more or less contemporary music. Best regards, Martin -- homme, ni présence ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Hi Martin, > when I explored the effect of that setting, I wasn't sure the outcome is > really that desirable Wait… is your example **actually** what happens with Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f? It’s awful. That should DEFINITELY not be the default. In 3/4 time, my beaming is always in three pairs of eighths, unless the following two conditions simultaneously apply: (1) all sixth eighth notes are present (i.e., no rests); and (2) I want the measure to be felt in one, not three. Otherwise, it’s pairs of eighths beamed, or single eighths with rests in all my scores. Regards, 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
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 6 April 2016 at 09:10, Thomas Scharkowski
wrote:
> From the Notation Reference:
> "In engraving from the Romantic and Classical periods, beams often begin
> midway through the measure in 3/4 time, but modern practice is to avoid the
> false impression of 6/8 time (see Gould, p. 153)."
>
> Shouldn't ##f be the default?
>
As I mentioned before, I find that justification a bit strange. (Call me
old-fashioned, but I believe that musical education can go a long way...)
But besides that, in the cases where it really does matter (as in Kieren's
example), such a "mechanical" approach just isn't the solution. Secondly,
when I explored the effect of that setting, I wasn't sure the outcome is
really that desirable:
\relative c' {
\time 3/4
\set Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f
r8 r r c c c
r r c c c r
r c c c r r
c c c r r r
r r c c c c
r c c c c r
r c c c c c
}
I left out some permutations, but maybe it's clear enough why the outcome
seems a bit inconsistent to me.
--
homme, ni présence
timing.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 06.04.2016 09:10, Thomas Scharkowski wrote: Even simpler (for the 3/4 case): /\set Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f/ From the Notation Reference: "In engraving from the Romantic and Classical periods, beams often begin midway through the measure in 3/4 time, but modern practice is to avoid the false impression of 6/8 time (see Gould, p. 153)." Shouldn't ##f be the default? I’m certain this has been discussed; I think it shouldn’t be, firstly because LilyPond is so indebted to engraving traditions of the 19th century (and rightly so), secondly because for most music it’s still not necessary to be so discriminating, and thirdly because in most ‘pre-1900’ music, _not_ beaming those three quavers together would convey some information on articulation, stresses, or motivic structure, and that wouldn’t be intended. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 06.04.2016 04:46, Martin Neubauer wrote: I was more curious about the existence of music that's strictly in 3/4 time and where the way of printing a three-quaver pickup would actually make a difference. There are hardly such cases before 1900, and that’s exactly why the convention changed. It’s a bit like with beaming in vocal music: pre-1900 music would rarely get so rhythmically complicated that having no beams on syllabic music would have been a problem. Such situations only came up later, so another notational convention was introduced. Best, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Even simpler (for the 3/4 case): /\set Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f/ From the Notation Reference: "In engraving from the Romantic and Classical periods, beams often begin midway through the measure in 3/4 time, but modern practice is to avoid the false impression of 6/8 time (see Gould, p. 153)." Shouldn't ##f be the default? Thomas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Kieren, You hit the nail on the head! Living in the southwestern U.S., I find myself going nuts between 6/8 and 3/4 - WSS is the perfect example - except that here we go back and forth without any actual notational indication (except maybe a hasty pencil mark). My head hurts by the end of my third or fourth service on Sunday for just that reason! Karen > On Apr 5, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Kieren MacMillan > wrote: > > Hi Martin, > >> On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:58 PM, Martin Neubauer wrote: >> I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really leads to >> ambiguity between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. > > In “West Side Story”, the half-measure beams in “America” indicate where the > measure grooves in 6/8, and the full-measure beams indicate where the measure > grooves in 3/4. (n.b. If I were engraving “WSS", I would go even further and > beam the three quarters separately.) If it were arbitrarily beamed, that > vital information would be lost. > > Or is that not the kind of thing you were talking about? > > 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 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 6 April 2016 at 04:16, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:58 PM, Martin Neubauer wrote: > > I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really leads to > ambiguity between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. > > In “West Side Story”, the half-measure beams in “America” indicate where > the measure grooves in 6/8, and the full-measure beams indicate where the > measure grooves in 3/4. (n.b. If I were engraving “WSS", I would go even > further and beam the three quarters separately.) If it were arbitrarily > beamed, that vital information would be lost. > > Or is that not the kind of thing you were talking about? > Almost. But that's a case where Timing.beamHalfMeasure wouldn't help much (if at all). I was more curious about the existence of music that's strictly in 3/4 time and where the way of printing a three-quaver pickup would actually make a difference. All the best, Martin -- homme, ni présence ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Hi Martin, On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:58 PM, Martin Neubauer wrote: > I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really leads to ambiguity > between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. In “West Side Story”, the half-measure beams in “America” indicate where the measure grooves in 6/8, and the full-measure beams indicate where the measure grooves in 3/4. (n.b. If I were engraving “WSS", I would go even further and beam the three quarters separately.) If it were arbitrarily beamed, that vital information would be lost. Or is that not the kind of thing you were talking about? 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
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 6 April 2016 at 01:51, Simon Albrecht wrote: > That would be unnecessary. Better use the beamHalfMeasure context > property, which is also explained on that docs page. > Interesting. In my defence I can only say that this wasn't available back when I started out with lilypond. But I played around a little with it now, and even though I can understand the sentiment behind it, the behaviour of that property seems a bit unconvincing to me. (For starters, it seems it's just a special case for a group of three quavers at the end of a measure.) And while it's a pretty exact fit for the original problem, whenever I had the need to alter the beaming I had to resort to more drastic measures. Besides all that I was wondering how often the odd half measure beam really leads to ambiguity between 3/4 and 6/8 time in properly typeset music. (For me at least that has never been an issue.) Trying to justify a change in the practice of music typesetting (which as such is neither good nor bad) by accusing the performing musicians of sloppy thinking seems somewhat irritating to me... Sorry for going off topic a bit there, but sometimes my mind just wanders off.. Best regards, Martin -- homme, ni présence ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Carl, Thanks for the additional detail - it was very helpful - at least for me. Unfortunately, it is probably a bit too much info for our young (second-year) viola student. I'm trying to keep his parts as "playable" as possibly. He needs to focus on tuning and confidence at the moment - reading will come with time - but only if he keeps up with it... Again, many thanks! Karen > On Apr 5, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > >> On 4/5/16 3:53 PM, "Karen Billings" wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I have encountered an auto-beaming problem (actually, the Violist for >> whom I'm doing transcriptions brought it to my attention). >> >> When working in 3/4, Lilypond is autobeaming 8th notes in groups of 3 8th >> notes per pulse (as if it were 6/8) rather than in groups of 2 8th notes >> per pulse. >> >> Is this the expected behavior? Is there an easier workaround than >> repeatedly turning autobeaming on and off? > > \set Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f > > This is described in the notation reference, under the heading "Beaming > based on beam exceptions". > > In Romantic and Classical periods, half measure beaming was common. > > HTH, > > Carl > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 4/5/16 3:53 PM, "Karen Billings" wrote: >Hi All, > >I have encountered an auto-beaming problem (actually, the Violist for >whom I'm doing transcriptions brought it to my attention). > >When working in 3/4, Lilypond is autobeaming 8th notes in groups of 3 8th >notes per pulse (as if it were 6/8) rather than in groups of 2 8th notes >per pulse. > >Is this the expected behavior? Is there an easier workaround than >repeatedly turning autobeaming on and off? \set Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f This is described in the notation reference, under the heading "Beaming based on beam exceptions". In Romantic and Classical periods, half measure beaming was common. HTH, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
On 06.04.2016 00:20, Martin Neubauer wrote: Hi Karen, When working in 3/4, Lilypond is autobeaming 8th notes in groups of 3 8th notes per pulse (as if it were 6/8) rather than in groups of 2 8th notes per pulse. That's not entirely accurate, in 3/4 time the autobeaming by default creates a single beam for the whole measure. In your example there were only runs of three quavers at a time which probably gave that somewhat misleading impression. Putting the following lines after the time signature might give you the result you expect: \set Timing.beamExceptions = #'() \set Timing.baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/4) \set Timing.beatStructure = #'(1 1 1 1) Moredetails are at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/beams . That would be unnecessary. Better use the beamHalfMeasure context property, which is also explained on that docs page. Best, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Even simpler (for the 3/4 case): /\set Timing.beamHalfMeasure = ##f/ -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/AutoBeam-Behaving-Properly-tp189326p189330.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Martin, Thank you so much - your recommendation worked like a charm! Karen On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 4:20 PM, Martin Neubauer wrote: Hi Karen, When working in 3/4, Lilypond is autobeaming 8th notes in groups of 3 8th notes per pulse (as if it were 6/8) rather than in groups of 2 8th notes per pulse. That's not entirely accurate, in 3/4 time the autobeaming by default creates a single beam for the whole measure. In your example there were only runs of three quavers at a time which probably gave that somewhat misleading impression. Putting the following lines after the time signature might give you the result you expect: \set Timing.beamExceptions = #'() \set Timing.baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/4) \set Timing.beatStructure = #'(1 1 1 1) Moredetails are at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/beams . Best of luck, Martin -- homme, ni présence ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: AutoBeam Behaving Properly?
Hi Karen, > When working in 3/4, Lilypond is autobeaming 8th notes in groups of 3 8th > notes per pulse (as if it were 6/8) rather than in groups of 2 8th notes > per pulse. > That's not entirely accurate, in 3/4 time the autobeaming by default creates a single beam for the whole measure. In your example there were only runs of three quavers at a time which probably gave that somewhat misleading impression. Putting the following lines after the time signature might give you the result you expect: \set Timing.beamExceptions = #'() \set Timing.baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/4) \set Timing.beatStructure = #'(1 1 1 1) Moredetails are at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/beams . Best of luck, Martin -- homme, ni présence ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
