Re: Broken beams' slopes

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/28/11 3:52 AM, "Janek Warchoł" <address@hidden> wrote:

> W dniu 27 sierpnia 2011 15:51 użytkownik Carl Sorensen
> <address@hidden> napisał:

>> 
>> 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.

> 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.

Thanks,

Carl