Re: autobeaming over rests,Re: autobeaming over rests

[David Kastrup]

Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de> writes:

> Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Valentin Petzel <valentin@petzel.at> writes:
>>
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in
>>> say piano music where something like this would make sense.
>> I'd say that proportion seems low enough that providing automatisms for
>> it is more likely to cause confusion than help.
>
> I disagree.

I think this disagreement may point to a difference with regard to what
people want from autobeaming.

In my book, the main point of autobeaming is to save the composer from
having to bother with beaming.  When the composer needs to double-check
whether the autobeamer guessed what the composer was aiming for, that
goal is not really achieved.

For me, it's about saving the author from having to _think_ about
beaming, not from having to _write_ beamings.

The two-string alternate beamings (this is really just Bach stealing
from his string solo pieces, like the prelude from the 3rd violin solo
partita he also misappropriated for lute as well as for organ) require
enough brain-wracking to come up with the idiomatic skippified urtext
beamings that I don't think an automatism for it makes a lot of sense:
if you want to save a few characters on entry, a custom music function
seems more like the way to go.

-- 
David Kastrup