Hi Urs, > I see two approaches to this: > > a) have the number of beams correspond to the actual duration of the > note (third attachment) > b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated as > usual (fourth attachment) > > Any opinions (or references to what the books say)?
Gould talks about this kind of issue, of course (pg. 165, etc.), but not surprisingly doesn’t give your precise example. If I read all of her examples correctly, one example she *does* give (with values double of yours) taken together with another example on the previous page implies that your third attachment (with the number of beams given according to the note value) seems correct. One further way to clarify the beat structure — which is always of principle concern — would be stemlets (which Gould also discusses in great detail, and recommends in many situations). Personally, of the four attachments you included, I prefer the third; depending on how complex the music is around this excerpt, I might futher prefer the stemlet version. Hope this helps! Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
