[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:46:37 +0200 |
2018-04-04 23:56 GMT+02:00 Filip May'r <address@hidden>:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> I am a new user of LilyPond and so far have found it to be a great tool. It
> is relatively easy to learn (at least the basics), free and extensive.
>
>
> May I suggest an added feature: An option to stack additional note beams for
> shorter note values on the opposite side of the first beam, that is, stacking
> up (or down) away from, instead of toward, the note head.
>
>
> I ran into this problem when transcribing Bach's double violin concerto using
> LilyPond.
>
>
> This is the bar (31) in the manuscript:
>
>
>
>
> Specifically the issue is with the 2nd and 3rd (c & d) notes into the bar:
>
>
>
>
> Attempting the usual stem direction changes and manual beaming results in
> this:
>
>
>
> The 16th note beam collides with the c and d note heads!
>
>
> I have not found how to correct this. However, a feature that would simply
> allow that the diminutive note value beams stack down away from the note head
> would fix this very neatly. To further demonstrate: I will change the 16th
> notes in the bar to 32nd notes:
>
>
>
> For every halving of the note value an additional beam is stacked up going up
> toward the note head. In such circumstance as the above examples demonstrate
> it would be ideal that those beams would stack going down away from the note
> head, toward the bottom of the staff, exactly what is done in the handwritten
> copy.
>
>
> If anyone knows or finds a work-around to this, please share.
>
>
> Regards
>
> - F.M.
You could do:
{
\stemUp
g'8[
\stemDown
\once \override Stem.beaming = #'((0) . (-1 0))
c''16
\once \override Stem.beaming = #'((-1 0) . (0))
d''
e''8
\stemUp
c']
}
Though, lily warns (with or without the overrides):
warning: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope
And is absolutely correct, the output _is_ ugly.
So I agree with Andrew.
Cheers,
Harm
- Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Filip May'r, 2018/04/04
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Andrew Bernard, 2018/04/04
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond,
Thomas Morley <=
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Filip May'r, 2018/04/05
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Karlin High, 2018/04/05
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Thomas Morley, 2018/04/05
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Filip May'r, 2018/04/06
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Karlin High, 2018/04/06
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Malte Meyn, 2018/04/06
- Message not available
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Malte Meyn, 2018/04/08
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Andrew Bernard, 2018/04/08
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2018/04/06
- Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond, Simon Albrecht, 2018/04/05