Re: Subdivided beams

[Trevor Daniels]

Urs Liska wrote Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:06 PM


>I had the opportunity to have a look in the German translation of 
> "Behind Bars" (which is BTW an exceptionally good translation. Usually I 
> prefer reading this kind of books in the original language, but here I 
> don't see any problems reading the translation).
> 
> There I found a rule where LilyPond's behaviour differs. The rule makes 
> perfect sense to me, and the (very few) examples I could immediately 
> find confirm it.
> 
> Consider the following example of beam subdivision
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/beams.html#Selected-Snippets-12
> 
> According to Gould (sorry, I don't own the book, so no page number 
> available) the rhythmical organization is indicated by the number of 
> remaining beams in the subdivisions. Depending on the length of the 
> following group there should remain one or more beams.
> 
> In the example in the docs the third beat is correctly divided in two 
> groups of a quaver's length, thus having a single beam in the middle. 
> But in the fourth beat the first and the third subdivision should have 
> *two* beams, indicating that they separate groups of a sixteenth note 
> length each.
> 
> From the description it seems that LilyPond doesn't do that and can't 
> easily be talked into doing it, so this seems an "embarrassing" bug.

This was recently discussed on the user list.  See

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-03/msg00365.html

and surrounding emails.

Trevor