lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Broken beams' slopes

 From: Janek Warchoł Subject: Re: Broken beams' slopes Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 17:42:45 +0200

```2011/8/28 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>:
> On 8/28/11 3:52 AM, "Janek Warchoł" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> W dniu 27 sierpnia 2011 15:51 użytkownik Carl Sorensen
>
>>>
>>> The a to b beam would have a slope of 1 ss per eighth note.
>>>
>>> The c to f beam  would have a slope of 3 ss per eighth note.
>>>
>>> the a to f beam would have a slope of 5 ss per  4 eighth notes, or 1.2 ss
>>> per eighth note.
>>>
>>> If you choose the slope of 1.2 for both sides, then it seems to me that the
>>> b stem will be longer than it would be without the beam on the other side of
>>> the break, and the c stem would be longer than it would be without the beam
>>> on the other side of the break.  If you force the b and c stems to be the
>>> same length, the a and f beams would be too short.
>>
>> Sorry, Carl, but i don't get it at all.  (btw, in which octave is your
>> example?)
>> Why "c to f beam  would have a slope of 3 ss per eighth note."?
>
> Oops -- I did all my calculations in half-staff-spaces, so each number
> should be divided by 2.

I think that some day we should get rid of 'positions' unit in our
code, btw...  In my opinion everything should be measured in staff
spaces.

>> f
>> notehead is only 1.5 ss higher than c, and beams are usually damped,
>> so the beam slope in c[ f] is less than 1.5 ss.
>> Perhaps i didn't explain my suggestion clear enough.  Please take a
>> look at the attachment - that's how i imagine beam breaking could
>> work:
>> - first, imagine an unbroken beam.
>> - break the beam while retaining the slope.
>> - adjust them a bit vertically: in the lower octave beam (left side)
>> the notes before the break have a bit long stems, but they couldn't be
>> shorter because beam must stop at middle line.  Notes after break have
>> too short stems - these can be adjusted by moving the beam up about
>> 0.5 ss. On the right side, stems before break are quite ok, and stems
>> after the break can be shortened a bit by moving the beam up.
>>
>> I don't see how this could fail or produce bad output - ?
>
> I misunderstood your suggestion.  When you said the stems would be the same
> length as if the other beam were not there, I was not thinking of adjusting
> the beam quanting only.
>
> I agree that your proposal should produce good output.  I'm sorry for the
> noise.

No problem.

cheers,
Janek

```