Fwd: Advice on best beaming

[Sven Axelsson]

On 6 November 2011 05:20, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 11/5/11 8:27 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> New-odd-rhythm is odd as well (and it should be, because the rhythm is
>>> odd -- with this type of syncopation the quaver should be broken up
>>> into a hemidemisemiquaver (did I get this right) tied to a
>>> double-dotted semiquaver, which would have a tie at the quaver
>>> boundary.
>>
>>New-odd-rhythm does not make sense: it has 5/16 to the beam on the
>>"second" beat.
>
> I agree.  Is it any worse than Old-odd-rhythm, which has 7/64 to the beam
> on the "first" beat and 9/64 to the beam on the "second" beat?
>
> My inclination would be to not worry about this change in the regtests --
> it goes from one bad to a different bad.  Neither one is right.  Instead,
> I'd fix the regtests so that they had sensible beaming, and demonstrate
> that it worked properly with sensible beaming.

Thanks for working on that. I'm certainly not an expert in these
matters, but in regards to the odd rythm example, I do think the new
version looks better and is more readable than the old one. And as
long as it works correctly in the regular case, I don't believe we
have to worry that much about these odd ones. It is always possible to
tweak them directly if necessary.

--
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.