Re: Beaming rules in 2.13.4

[Neil Puttock]

2009/9/29 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>:

> In referring to Stone (p. 113), he indicates that for ternary measures (e.g.
> 3/4), it would be "customary to combine one pair of equals (if there is one)
> and leave the remaining beat-unit separate."  He then illustrates, showing
> that for a measure of all 8th notes, the preferred beaming would be a8[ a a
> a] a8[ a].

Really, this makes no sense; any musician coming across such beaming
would assume there's special emphasis being placed on the beaming
division (e.g., for stress or phrasing purposes).

> If you're satisfied that it really should be grouped (6), I'll be happy to
> revert my most recent patch.

I think the problem here is the tension between what is considered
good modern practice and traditional typesetting style.  As I see it,
some features of LilyPond which contribute to its charm are precisely
those elements which reflect more conservative typographical practice.

I suppose it depends on what the consensus is among users as to
whether we should retain what might be deemed old-fashioned features
(I'm thinking also of the defaults for 4/4 and 2/2: I'm sure modern
practice whould have us all using numerical time signatures).

Regards,
Neil