Re: Advice on best beaming

[Carl Sorensen]

On 11/5/11 8:27 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

>Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> New-odd-rhythm is odd as well (and it should be, because the rhythm is
>> odd -- with this type of syncopation the quaver should be broken up
>> into a hemidemisemiquaver (did I get this right) tied to a
>> double-dotted semiquaver, which would have a tie at the quaver
>> boundary.
>
>New-odd-rhythm does not make sense: it has 5/16 to the beam on the
>"second" beat.

I agree.  Is it any worse than Old-odd-rhythm, which has 7/64 to the beam
on the "first" beat and 9/64 to the beam on the "second" beat?

My inclination would be to not worry about this change in the regtests --
it goes from one bad to a different bad.  Neither one is right.  Instead,
I'd fix the regtests so that they had sensible beaming, and demonstrate
that it worked properly with sensible beaming.

Thanks,

Carl