Thanks - adjusting the Stem.details.beamed-length as required did the job, though as you say it requires adjustment for each individual case. So I gritted my teeth and did it - there were 54 instances (less than I would have guessed actually), so it was quite manageable.
To my surprise, mostly it looks quite good; there are a couple of bars in which no note has less than four leger lines, and these look more attenuated than I think is sensible - but the publishers will have to say. Of course, if they agree a compromise in a few cases, the adjustment is very easy now the commands are in place. Also, I've left beams which don't need this adjustment untouched - in a couple of cases tweaking them to match the extended beams either side of them might look better. Thanks for the tip. Paul On 28/09/2021 10:14:26, "N. Andrew Walsh" <n.andrew.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Paul, > >I'm sure you know of the override pair: > >\override Stem.stemlet-length = #0.5 >\override Stem.details.beamed-lengths = #'(4.75) >( music with beamed rests here ) >\revert Stem.stemlet-length >\revert Stem.details.beamed-lengths > >I'm not aware of any way to set this globally. Well, the first one can >be set once. You'll still have to use "[" and "]" to force beaming, and >you should, for the sake of Best Practices™, set the stemlet length >manually for each one. > >But this is the way I've had to do it; and while it's tedious to do >that for every affected beam, it ensures that they look good and work >properly. > >Cheers, > >A > >On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:08 AM Paul Hodges <p...@cassland.org> wrote: >>The composer I'm working on is very fond of having beams over rests - >>and indeed it helps a lot in reading his more complex rhythms. >>However, >>LilyPond is treating rests differently from notes, in that beam >>positions are adjusted to suit the notes, whereas rests are then >>adjusted to suit the beams. So I get this kind of layout: >>However, the publisher wants rests to remain in their standard >>position, >>like this: >> >>with occasional compromises to this extent: >> >> >>I can obviously force this in individual cases, but again, is there a >>global adjustment I can make to get nearer to what I'm being asked >>for? >> >>Thanks, >>Paul
