On 11-Feb-06, at 10:59 AM, Ben Fisher wrote:
Thanks for the quick response. Yeah, I was expecting c'4. c'8 d'[ e'].
I tend to agree Nahum, that this is not expected. I'm not an expert on
these matters but generally expect to see 8th notes only grouped
together when there is an even number.
Thanks for the quick response. Yeah, I was expecting c'4. c'8 d'[ e'].
I tend to agree Nahum, that this is not expected. I'm not an expert on these matters but generally expect to see 8th notes only grouped together when there is an even number.
I'm not sure what the psychological advantages are to
The grouping which Lilypond chooses by default in this case (as in most
others) is the standard way of grouping such a figure in common practice
instrumental music. In 2/4 and 3/4, any consecutive eighth-notes within a
measure are typically beamed together (with a few exceptions).
Inciden
would c'4. c'8 d'[ e'] be what you expect? or what?
On 2/10/06, Ben Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks like Lilypond is giving the wrong output here:
>
> {
> \time 3/4
> c'4. c'8 d' e'
> }
>
> The three eighth notes are grouped together. I have no idea why this should
> happen, because
It looks like Lilypond is giving the wrong output here:
{
\time 3/4
c'4. c'8 d' e'
}
The three eighth notes are grouped together. I have no idea why this should happen, because they aren't triplets. If the time signature were 6/8 then it might make sense, but otherwise I can't imagine why.
I
