Today I tried to use the \overrideBeamSetting (near the bottom of this
email) in my real score and I am very happy that it works perfectly now.
By now I understand the logic behind this from a programmer's
perspective.
But I have to say it seems quite counterintuitive from a musical or
typesetter's point of view. If I change the beatLength setting I'd
expect that beams are now grouped according to this new beatLength. I
wouldn't expect that there is a default setting somewhere (which I as a
typesetter originally don't see at all) which produces four groups in a
4/4 regardless of the length of the group.
I'd expect the grouping - if not explicitly set to some irregular
values - to repeat throughout the bar.
I'm not quite sure what the best solution would be, but maybe one
should have some kind of default grouping similar to the default beam
type shortcuts.
This setting:
\overrideBeamSettings #'Score #'(4 . 4) #'end
#'(((1 . 8) . (4 4))
((1 . 16) . (2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2))
((1 . 32) . (4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4)))
might then be written something like:
...
((1 . 16) . (*))
((1 . 32) . (*)))
or
((*) . (*)))
, the right "*" meaning "group beams according to beatLength".
I think this would be clearer and less redundant.
I am not complaining about anything. And probably it's no good moment
for these ideas - either your current changes go into this direction
anyway or you won't care to rethink everything again...
Just wanted to give some ideas from a user's perspective. Whether or
not they are useful for anybody dealing with the issue from a
programmer's side...
Best
Urs
Am 15.06.2010 00:43, schrieb u_li:
Am 15.06.2010 00:33, schrieb u_li:
Am 14.06.2010 15:37, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 6/14/10 7:18 AM, "u_li" <address@hidden> wrote:
Am 14.06.2010 15:04, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 6/14/10 5:24 AM, "u_li"<address@hidden> wrote:
[sorry if this should be a double post. When I first sent the message I
didn't
configure my current email client to use my registered address. As I don't
see
my post on the list I assume it didn't get through. If it did please ignore
this second post ]
Dear community,
it seems I have yet another problem with automatic beaming (similar to
problems I read about recently).
What I want LilyPond to do is to beam consecutive 32th notes in a 4/4 time
in
groups of 4 (i.e. 8 groups of 1/8 length each).
What version are you using? This is an important question, because the
autobeaming is changing right now.
Thanks,
Carl
The example file says "2.13.19" and this is probably true (I say
probably because I am not at my lilypond computer right now).
So I can just update regularly and hope that my issue ist right now
being addressed?
Would be quite good luck ;-)
I couldn't see the example file in my email (the forwarded email came
through as an inlined binary file).
beatLength only adjusts beaming if there is not an explicit rule for the
time signature. beatLength is mostly used for beam subdivision, rather than
beam division.
OK. But in my example beatLength _did_ adjust beaming, only not
correctly.
See the Notation Reference for setting automatic beam behavior:
<http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/beams#setting-automatic-beam-behavior>
Of course I have read this. More than once. But I have to admit this
topic is quite complex and the documentation chapter is confusing (at
least for me). I could solve some issues by studying the snippets but
not all.
... I just re-read the topic and still find it confusing. But it seems
I am beginning to comprehend ...
Do I understand the following correctly?
- in beam-settings.scm there is a default rule for 4/4 time:
((*
.
(1 1 1 1)).
That is: beams are grouped in four groups of one beatLength (= 1/4)
each.
- If I set beatLength to a different value the above rule is
still
valid but behaves wrongly because the grouping "1 1 1 1" refers to the
now changed beatLength.
Therefore I get four correct groups whereas the remaining notes are
beamed together because there is no grouping defined anymore for them.
- This is why I have to figure out a correct
overrideBeamSettings
command with an explicit rule for my desired beam type.
???
If someone could confirm this I would happily (well, not really
happily, but with a good consciensce) try to figure out a usable
command on my own.
Sorry, this is not necessary anymore. I fixed it (my problem and my not
understanding) with
\overrideBeamSettings #'Score #'(4 . 4) #'end
#'(((1 . 8) . (4 4))
((1 . 16) . (2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2))
((1 . 32) . (4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4)))
i.e. an explicit rule for 1/32 beams.
This was just for the record ;-)
Best
Urs
You will need to use the overrideBeamSettings command to set this up.
There is currently a patch in review that will change this functionality.
So if you don't need the score in the next week or two, you might want to
wait until the patch is resolved.
So if this is about the time to wait, I may rathrer do this and then
try to tackle the technique. There is still so much to do, as well on
the LilyPond side as for philological decisions, I can calmly put
_this_ problem aside for a while.
Thank you very much (for the answers and the work your are obviously
doing).
Best
Urs
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
|