Re: Changing autobeaming for 4/4 time

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/10/09 9:14 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> 
> Trevor Daniels wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 8:49 AM
>> 
>> Neil Puttock wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 12:31 AM
>> 
>> 2009/8/10 Patrick McCarty <address@hidden>:
>> 
>>> I wonder why we are seeing different beaming patterns? I think
>>> all of
>>> your manually-beamed patterns are correct though.
>> 
>> Trevor's using the MinGW build I posted a few days ago, so it's
>> missing Carl's last changes to beam-settings.scm.
>> 
>> Aah, thanks for reminding me, Neil.  I'd forgotten those.  I'll
>> fish
>> them out and apply them to my current LP.
> 
> With all Carl's mods applied just the expected two inconsistencies
> remain:
> 
> \relative c'' {
>   a8 a a16 a a8 a a a a16 a | % wrong, should be ...
>   a8 a a16[ a a8] a a a[ a16 a] |
> 
>   a32 a a16 a a a a32 a a16 a a a a32 a a16 a a a a32 a | % wrong,
> should be ...
>   a32[ a a16 a a] a[ a32 a a16 a] a[ a a32 a a16] a a a a32 a
> }
> 
> The second of these can be fixed (bypassed really) with
> 
> \overrideBeamSettings #'Score #'(4 . 4) #'end #'(((1 . 32) . (8 8 8
> 8)))
> 
> which I think is a more acceptable beaming anyway,
> but the first is a more fundamental problem which cannot be
> fixed by any override which preserves beam breaks at
> 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 AFAICS.

OK, so now I can see the differences.  Thanks, Trevor.

Can you express in words a rule that describes why

a8 a a16[ a a8] a a a[ a16 a16]

is better than

a8[ a a16 a a8] a8[ a a a16 a]
 
?  It seems to me that something has triggered a desire to break the beam on
the beats, when

a8[ a a a] a[ a a a]

is desired to break at 1/2.

Perhaps if you can explain this, I can figure out what is missing in the
autobeaming algorithms.

Thanks,

Carl