azing how this makes an argument for kneed beams, so shunned by
> most modern typesetters!
I don't think I understand why this makes an argument for kneed beams, can't
one can have the same slope for both a kneed beam and a non-kneed beam?
Cheers!
Gilberto
--
View this mes
On 09.07.2016 17:14, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:
Andrew Bernard wrote
What nonsense Gould writes here. I perceive duration in notation on any
angle. The book is not always right in its justifications.
I think what Gould means is that duration is notated in the x-axis of a
staff, and so keeping be
s does, right?
Anyway, I think I will bring this issue of tuplet angles to the bug squad as
I think it's pretty clear we should have a max slope pre-defined.
Cheers!
Gilberto
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/tuplet-bracket-slope-tp192294p192444.html
Hi Gilberto,
On 7 July 2016 at 3:07:25 AM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:
> Beam angles should not deviate far from the horizontal because the eye
> perceives duration on the horizontal plane.
What nonsense Gould writes here. I perceive duration in notation on any
angle. The book is not always right
r be too acute
anyway. Also, it would be great to have some way of forcing the brackets to
be always horizontal, similar to what can be achieved with beams by using
\override Beam.damping = #+inf.0
Cheers,
Gilberto
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/tuplet
atter seems like a more reasonable approach to me. Does anyone have
access to Elaine Gould's /Behind Bars/? If so, what does she says about the
bracket slope?
Cheers!
Gilberto
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/tuplet-bracket-slope-tp192294.html
Sent from th
