Re: Misleading autobeaming in 3/4

[Damian leGassick]

sorry to be a pedant, but...

traditionally, 4. [8 8 8] is the exception to the rule that you subdivide the 
8ths 2,2,2 in a 3/4 bar

Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms and Ravel do this 
consistently. It is also normal for Debussy apart from in the late violin 
sonata .

the occasional exception to this exception is in phrasing like this:

4.( 8)-. 8[(  8]) or 4.( 8)-. 8[(  8] 

I'm sorry to contradict David but you'll be hard pushed to find many published 
examples of 4. 8 [8 8] that don't have mitigating phrasing circumstances (e.g. 
Rachmaninov prefers a strict 2,2,2 at slow tempi). There are, otoh, literally 
thousands of examples of 4. [8 8 8] in 3/4 time from the baroque through 
late-romantic periods - it is certainly not 'wrong' even though it 'should' be 
logically

d

On 14 Aug 2011, at 17:59, Craig wrote:

> On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 12:00 -0400, address@hidden wrote:
>> So the defaults should look like [8 8 8 8 8 8] and even [8. 16 8 8 8
>> 8],
>> but 4. [8 8 8] is wrong and needs to be 4. 8 [8 8] instead.
>> 
>> 6/8 would have [8 8 8] [8 8 8], [8. 16 8] [8 8 8] and 4. [8 8 8],
>> respectively.
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Kastrup 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I must add that (I am speaking as a living composer, for what that is
> worth these days), the above question has more to do with phrasing and
> tempo.  I write the 4. [8 8 8] with musical textures that are developing
> rapidly with a fast tempo, and I write 4. 8 [8 8] when things are
> developing slowly.  Also, it depends upon the other parts of the music,
> if there are further simultaneous subdivisions.  But, it is mainly
> because of phrasing.  Brahms and Chopin expedited their notation.
> Didn't Chopin and Brahms write 4. [8 8 8]?
> 
> Craig Bakalian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user