[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Misleading autobeaming in 3/4
From: |
Dmytro O. Redchuk |
Subject: |
Re: Misleading autobeaming in 3/4 |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:54:17 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Sun 14 Aug 2011, 15:20 Phil Holmes wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> news:address@hidden
> >"Bertrand Bordage" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> >>Hi again,
> >>
> >>There's a small defect in autobeaming:
Added by Phil as 1817:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1817
(just for the record)
> >>%%%
> >>\markup "This:"
> >>\relative c'' { \time 3/4 a4. b8 c d e d c b4. a8 b c d c b a2. }
> >>\markup "looks like 6/8:"
> >>\relative c'' { \time 6/8 a4. b8 c d e d c b4. a8 b c d c b a2. }
> >>\markup "but should be like this:"
> >>\relative c'' { \time 3/4 a4. b8\noBeam c d e d c\noBeam b4. a8 b c d c b
> >>a2. }
> >>%%%
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, I don't think this can be easily fixed with the current
> >>system.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Bertrand
> >
> >Gardner Read gives the "correct" beaming pattern for 3/4 to be 6
> >beamed quavers, so the implication is that any available quavers
> >are beamed. Gotta say that seems wrong to me, but can we wait
> >until a beaming guru comments before raising this as an issue?
> >
> >--
> >Phil Holmes
> >Bug Squad
>
> Stay that - I've just found the correct bit of Gould (page 153),
> where she's clear it shouldn't look like this (and I've seen Carl's
> comment). I'll raise this as an issue.
--
Dmytro O. Redchuk "Easy to use" is easy to say.
Bug Squad -- Jeff Garbers