[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subdivided beams
From: |
Trevor Daniels |
Subject: |
Re: Subdivided beams |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:49:23 +0100 |
Urs Liska wrote Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:06 PM
>I had the opportunity to have a look in the German translation of
> "Behind Bars" (which is BTW an exceptionally good translation. Usually I
> prefer reading this kind of books in the original language, but here I
> don't see any problems reading the translation).
>
> There I found a rule where LilyPond's behaviour differs. The rule makes
> perfect sense to me, and the (very few) examples I could immediately
> find confirm it.
>
> Consider the following example of beam subdivision
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/beams.html#Selected-Snippets-12
>
> According to Gould (sorry, I don't own the book, so no page number
> available) the rhythmical organization is indicated by the number of
> remaining beams in the subdivisions. Depending on the length of the
> following group there should remain one or more beams.
>
> In the example in the docs the third beat is correctly divided in two
> groups of a quaver's length, thus having a single beam in the middle.
> But in the fourth beat the first and the third subdivision should have
> *two* beams, indicating that they separate groups of a sixteenth note
> length each.
>
> From the description it seems that LilyPond doesn't do that and can't
> easily be talked into doing it, so this seems an "embarrassing" bug.
This was recently discussed on the user list. See
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-03/msg00365.html
and surrounding emails.
Trevor