On 6/23/10 2:55 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 6/16/10 3:18 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> Carl.D.Sorensen wrote Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:27 PM > Well, I'm no expert either. My snippet above is based > on Ross, p 92, which says "Do not notate a 3/4 measure > that looks like a measure in 6/8 time." This statement is missing in my edition of Ross. > Poor English, > but he goes on to show the first two of the three > examples marked incorrect above, and clearly labels them > as incorrect. > >> And I adjusted the the autobeaming code so it would work according >> to your recommendations. >> >> Today I've been studying books to see what the references say, >> because the >> new rule I added caused a regression in 4/4 time. >> >> I want to get some clarification. If I understand your rules >> correctly, you >> believe that >> >> f4 r8 f8[ f f] >> >> would be incorrect beaming, and that instead it should be beamed >> >> f4 r8 f8 f8[ f] > > Yes; Ross gives exactly these patterns later on p 92 and labels them > incorrect and correct respectively. That's where my snippet came > from. > >> Ross, however (1970, page 92) shows the first pattern as "Another >> use of the >> beam in 3/4 time", rather than as an incorrect use. > > Hhm. Maybe we are looking a different editions. All I can > see earlier on p 92 are examples that don't contain rests, and > it is the presence of the rest that is important, since this > causes three quavers to be beamed together, making it look like > a 6/8 measure. I think I need to get a later edition of Ross. In my edition, there is no label of Incorrect and Correct above this snippet, although there is above a previous snippet. And later in the chapter he shows side-by-side snippets that are both correct. > >> The algorithm I developed to resolve that problem led to the >> following inT >> >> r8 f8 f8[ f] f8[ f f f] >> >> where we previously had >> >> r8 f8[ f f] f8[ f f f] >> >> Ross (1970, page 91) shows the following as an acceptable beaming >> in 4/4 >> >> r8 f8[ f f] f4 f8[ f] >> >> Which would imply the the previous beaming is correct. > > Agreed, although I don't think the new beaming here is as bad > as making a 3/4 measure look like one in 6/8. I agree. And it's quite easy to add manual beaming in this case. > >> The bottom line is that the new beaming rules solve the first and >> third >> incorrect cases in your example above. However, the price of >> doing that is >> they split a previously acceptable beam in 4/4 time. >> >> Let me summarize: >> >> OLD NEW >> 3/4 >> f4 r8 f8[ f f] f4 r8 f8 f8[ f] >> f4. f8[ b8. a16] f4. f8 b8.[ a16] >> >> 4/4 >> r8 f8[ f f] f8[ f f f] r8 f8 f8[ f] f8[ f f f] >> >> So are these beaming rules correct, or at least better than the >> old ones? > > I think they are better than the old ones, but I'd prefer > to hear opinions from some real musicians. > I agree on both counts. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
