>> The Alain and Rachmaninov only have one fewer beam, so the beam
>> count between the groups is not appropriate for the lengths of the
>> subdivided groups, according to the Gould rules. Personally, I
>> think the Gould rules are correct, but two of the music publishers
>> in your example do no
On 04.07.24 19:00, Carl Sorensen wrote:
The Alain and Rachmaninov only have one fewer beam, so the beam count
between the groups is not appropriate for the lengths of the
subdivided groups, according to the Gould rules. Personally, I think
the Gould rules are correct, but two of the music publ
On 2024-07-04 09:09, Jason Yip - sripedia_getpgrp(a)slmail.me wrote:
On 2024-07-03 22:06, Werner LEMBERG - wl(a)gnu.org wrote:
Even though you want this special subdivision at just one point in
your example, do you have examples where this special subdivision
occurs at multiple points in the sam
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 11:07 PM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> OK, here are some scans that I've found. As you can see, this kind of
> subdivision is not so special as previously assumed.
>
> * Jehan Alain, trois danses – Deuils (for organ), (publisher: Leduc)
>
> * Prokofiev, piano sonata 7, op. 83,
On 2024-07-03 22:06, Werner LEMBERG - wl(a)gnu.org wrote:
Even though you want this special subdivision at just one point in
your example, do you have examples where this special subdivision
occurs at multiple points in the same beam? My former suggestion
acts as a offset of # of beamlets for eve
> I have thought of a probably better solution. Currently, if
> `minimumBeamSubdivisionInterval` > `maximumBeamSubdivisionInterval`,
> the algorithm basically pretends that `subdivideBeams` is false.
> What if I change the behavior of that case such that you can add
> `maximumBeamSubdivisionInterv
> This may be slightly less ugly, but it still requires a function
> call every place you want a beam subdivision:
Thanks!
Werner
On 2024-07-02 21:33, Werner LEMBERG - wl(a)gnu.org wrote:
My beam subdivision algorithm tries to strictly respect metric
values as subdivision is intended to ease readers' track of the
current measure position. Adding features that loosen that
strictness such as one to support your de
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 10:48 AM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
> how can I easily create a beam subdivision as shown in the attached
> image using the current development version 2.25.18? The solution I
> came up with is extremely ugly...
>
>
> Werner
> My reading would be
>
> \version "2.24.3"
> \relative c'' {
> d4 r16 f d b g'4~ g16 a c a64 (g fis g) |
> }
>
> It corrects only one beaming "error", is more rhythmically
> consistent, and might be more in keeping with the context.
Thanks, but I'm not typesetting the sonata :-) It would be
ge-
From: lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org
On Behalf Of Werner LEMBERG
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:33 PM
To: sripedia_getp...@slmail.me
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: beam subdivision problem
Hello Jason,
> > ```
> > {
> &g
unt = 2
> >f' f' f' f'
> > }
> > ```
>
> Looks like this won't be possible without manually setting the beam
> count.
OK, thanks.
> My beam subdivision algorithm tries to strictly respect metric
> values as subdivision is
ams = ##t \once \set
minimumBeamSubdivisionInterval = \musicLength 8 f'16 f'32 \set
stemRightBeamCount = 2 f' \set stemLeftBeamCount = 2 f' f' f' f' } ```
Looks like this won't be possible without manually setting the beam
count. My beam subdivision algorithm tries to strict
Folks,
how can I easily create a beam subdivision as shown in the attached
image using the current development version 2.25.18? The solution I
came up with is extremely ugly...
Werner
```
{
\once \set subdivideBeams = ##t
\once \set minimumBeamSubdivisionInterval = \musicLength 8
On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 22:15, Thomas Morley
wrote:
>
> Am Sa., 30. Mai 2020 um 05:06 Uhr schrieb Vaughan McAlley
> :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Beam subdivision is great, but is there a way of automatically turning
it off for just sixteenths? So recreating this exampl
Am Sa., 30. Mai 2020 um 05:06 Uhr schrieb Vaughan McAlley
:
>
> Hi,
>
> Beam subdivision is great, but is there a way of automatically turning it off
> for just sixteenths? So recreating this example, but without constantly
> turning subdivision on and off.
>
> Cheers
Hi,
Beam subdivision is great, but is there a way of automatically turning it
off for just sixteenths? So recreating this example, but without constantly
turning subdivision on and off.
Cheers,
Vaughan
subdivision.ly
Description: Binary data
Hi Urs,
> Are there any strong (and reasoned) objections against changing the default
> here?
No. Your new default seems the superior choice.
Thanks!
Kieren.
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
___
Hi Urs,
> Opinions?
I agree with Gould: (b), with the one adjustment, is superior.
> what this seems to call for is an update
> to the beaming pattern calculation, something like (an optional) "do not
> further subdivide a group that already has exactly four notes" rule. But
> somehow I'm afraid
On 15.03.2016 09:44, Urs Liska wrote:
I would strongly suggest to switch the default setting so that
subdivideBeams is set to #t by default.
Agreed.
Best, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.03.2016 um 10:58 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
> >> So, before integrating that into my code I would collect opinions. Are
> >> > there any strong (and reasoned) objections against changing the
> default
> >> > here?
> > I agree we should s
Am 15.03.2016 um 10:58 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
>> So, before integrating that into my code I would collect opinions. Are
>> > there any strong (and reasoned) objections against changing the default
>> > here?
> I agree we should switch the default, as long as it is clearly stated in
> Changes, p
Urs Liska wrote Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:44 AM
> I would like to ask for your opinion on the matter of switching beam
> subdivisions on or off by default.
>
> I would strongly suggest to switch the default setting so that
> subdivideBeams is set to #t by default. I know that will affect existin
> So, before integrating that into my code I would collect opinions.
> Are there any strong (and reasoned) objections against changing the
> default here?
Your suggestions looks sensible.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.or
Am 15.03.2016 um 10:08 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at least mentally I'm starting to get back to the beaming pattern code.
>>
>> I would like to ask for your opinion on the matter of switching beam
>> subdivisions on or off by default.
>>
>> I would strongly sug
Another puzzle/quiz/poll on beaming patterns for today.
Consider the attached renderings of a phrase with many notes, many beams
and inconsistent note durations (=> beam count). a) is rendered with a
base duration of 1/8 b) with 1/16.
(Note that unlike my previous post this is *not* about choosin
Urs Liska writes:
> Hi all,
>
> at least mentally I'm starting to get back to the beaming pattern code.
>
> I would like to ask for your opinion on the matter of switching beam
> subdivisions on or off by default.
>
> I would strongly suggest to switch the default setting so that
> subdivideBeams
Hi all,
at least mentally I'm starting to get back to the beaming pattern code.
I would like to ask for your opinion on the matter of switching beam
subdivisions on or off by default.
I would strongly suggest to switch the default setting so that
subdivideBeams is set to #t by default. I know th
Trevor,
Thanks! Indeed lilypond is not doing the right thing, and needs to be
adjustable by the user in this aspect.
I can do it the original way with explicit beam control, so there is a
solution. It’s just very tedious and error prone - when there are several
hundred of these in the score I
2015-03-10 22:29 GMT+01:00 Trevor Daniels :
> tisimst wrote Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:52 PM
>
>> The other question the OP was asking is can
>> the group default to have TWO full beams
>> across the group, ...
>> I had a look through the IR and couldn't find
>> anything that says it will only use a
tisimst wrote Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:52 PM
> The other question the OP was asking is can
> the group default to have TWO full beams
> across the group, ...
> I had a look through the IR and couldn't find
> anything that says it will only use a SINGLE
> beam across the whole group.
The sni
Hi,
On 03/10/2015 05:52 PM, tisimst wrote:
>> The other question the OP was asking is can the group default to have
>> TWO full beams across the group
Am 10.03.2015 um 21:01 schrieb Rutger Hofman:
> So, if 32nd notes are subgrouped into groups of 4, the subgroup duration is
> 1/8 and the
> beam
On 03/10/2015 05:52 PM, tisimst wrote:
The other question the OP was asking is can the group default to have
TWO full beams across the group, while the pairs of 32nd notes are
beamed together with a third. It seems like non-standard notation, so
quick, generic solutions for any size of group, out
x27;
> }
> }
>
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>
\version "2.18.2"
\relative c'' {
% this should be all you need
% if you use \once you can aply it any time
\once \set subdivideBeams = ##t
\set baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/20)
\tuplet 5/4 {
% no square brackets needed
e,32 c' bes e d bes' g d' d, aes'
}
% without
\tuplet 5/4
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Bernard
wrote:
> This is good, and helpful, but I was wanting two beams between the groups
> of 32s, not one. [Maybe this is non standard after all.]
Ah my apologies; I misread your mail. A quick search didn't yield what
property sets the default at one
This is good, and helpful, but I was wanting two beams between the groups of
32s, not one. [Maybe this is non standard after all.]
On 10 March 2015 at 23:27:30, Kevin Barry (barr...@gmail.com) wrote:
The following should be what you want. It works by setting the baseMoment to a
theoretical val
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Bernard
wrote:
> How can I do this in a more idiomatic, and less tedious way than the
> following?
Hi Andrew,
The following should be what you want. It works by setting the baseMoment
to a theoretical value of 1/20 (that is, four fifths of a semiquaver,
I need to subdivide beams in tuplets into groups of two 32s joined by two
beams, not one. This is pretty common. How can I do this in a more idiomatic,
and less tedious way than the following?
\version "2.19.16"
\relative c'' {
\time 1/4
\tuplet 5/4 {
e,32[
\once \overri
Rutger Hofman wrote Tuesday, April 01, 2014 12:11 PM
> Yes, thanks, I looked at it quite often and I didn't find what I asked
> for. Did I miss that section? Let me summarize: I asked for smart
> *sub*division, not division. I would like to have an automatic
> subdivision scheme that results i
On 04/01/2014 12:23 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Rutger Hofman"
To: "lilypond-user"
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:03 AM
Subject: Smarter automatic beam subdivision?
Good morning list,
I would love to be able to make 'smart'
- Original Message -
From: "Rutger Hofman"
To: "lilypond-user"
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:03 AM
Subject: Smarter automatic beam subdivision?
Good morning list,
I would love to be able to make 'smart' automatic beam subdivision, so,
for exampl
Am 01.04.2014 12:03, schrieb Rutger Hofman:
I wouldn't mind if the syntax would allow things like:
c32[[ c c c] c[ c c c]]
Seems like a good idea, but I think it would be preferrable to have a
distinct character for that to avoid confusion.
Maybe something like
c32[\[ c c c\] c\[ c c c\]]
Good morning list,
I would love to be able to make 'smart' automatic beam subdivision, so,
for example, it automatically subdivides 16th at the quarter, but 32nds
or 6/4* 16th etc at the eighths. Is there a way to accomplish that?
Btw, the current syntax to do ad-hoc subdivision
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Scharkowski"
To: "lilypond-user"
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: Beam subdivision bug in 2.15.22?
\times 2/3 { b16 b b } b8 b4 b b
2.15.22 produces a (wrong) beam subdivison.
2.14.2 output is correct.
See att
Thomas Scharkowski writes:
> \times 2/3 { b16 b b } b8 b4 b b
>
> 2.15.22 produces a (wrong) beam subdivison.
> 2.14.2 output is correct.
> See attachments.
>
> Is this a bug?
> I searched the bug list but did not find this one.
I would have a hard time calling this anything else. You might wan
\times 2/3 { b16 b b } b8 b4 b b
2.15.22 produces a (wrong) beam subdivison.
2.14.2 output is correct.
See attachments.
Is this a bug?
I searched the bug list but did not find this one.
Thomas
<><>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
On 17-Jan-05, at 4:39 PM, Sebastiano Vigna wrote:
sn32 sn sn
\set DrumVoice.stemRightBeamCount = #1
sn
\set DrumVoice.stemLeftBeamCount = #1
sn sn sn sn
An example of this kind would be an excellent addition to the manual.
Already exists, at least in 2.5.8.
Note that the manual uses a \property mac
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 23:56 +0100, Erik Sandberg wrote:
> You can always use stemLeftBeamCount etc.
Now I got it: to get that kind of effect, you must use BOTH
stemLeftBeamCount AND stemRightBeamCount on the last note of the group,
as in
sn32 sn sn
\set DrumVoice.stemRightBeamCount = #1
sn
\se
On Monday 17 January 2005 22.25, Sebastiano Vigna wrote:
> Two questions (I posed one in lilypond-devel, not realising it was the
> wrong place):
>
> 1) Is there any way of forcing a beam subdivision at a certain point? I
> am typesetting drum scores, and whem I have things like
>
Two questions (I posed one in lilypond-devel, not realising it was the
wrong place):
1) Is there any way of forcing a beam subdivision at a certain point? I
am typesetting drum scores, and whem I have things like
sn32[ sn sn sn sn sn sn sn]
I would like to force a one-line beam between the
51 matches
Mail list logo
