Re: Beaming over a rest before a subdivision

[Urs Liska]

Am 12.01.2016 um 16:37 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> I see two approaches to this:
>>
>> a) have the number of beams correspond to the actual duration of the
>> note (third attachment)
>> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated as
>> usual (fourth attachment)
>>
>> Any opinions (or references to what the books say)?
> Gould talks about this kind of issue, of course (pg. 165, etc.), but not 
> surprisingly doesn’t give your precise example. If I read all of her examples 
> correctly, one example she *does* give (with values double of yours) taken 
> together with another example on the previous page implies that your third 
> attachment (with the number of beams given according to the note value) seems 
> correct.
>
> One further way to clarify the beat structure — which is always of principle 
> concern — would be stemlets (which Gould also discusses in great detail, and 
> recommends in many situations).
>
> Personally, of the four attachments you included, I prefer the third; 
> depending on how complex the music is around this excerpt, I might futher 
> prefer the stemlet version.
>
> Hope this helps!
> Kieren.
>

Hi Kieren,

thanks for info and opinion. (I really have to get hold of Gould's book
finally ...).

If I'd implement that

\relative c'' {
  a32 [ a a r a16 a  ]
  \set subdivideBeams = ##t
  \set baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/8)
  a32 [ a a r a16 a  ]
}

would give the attached score. Note that the first and third beams are
(obviously intended) behavior of current (and previous) LilyPond.

Best
Urs

document.png
Description: PNG image