Re: Configuring beam count at subdivisions

[Simon Albrecht]

On 18.01.2016 18:12, Urs Liska wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> off-list I got one strong opinion against providing the #'one option 
> because it's incorrect.

‘Because it’s incorrect’ being one of the weaker arguments. Actually it 
impedes legibility, so…

> I know it's incorrect, and that's why I had asked for an improvement 
> around a year ago.
> However, it's the way everybody is used to, and that's why some might 
> still *want* to engraver their scores that way.
>
> Apart from LilyPond < 2.19.21 this is what Sibelius and Finale users 
> can achieve automatically (except for drawing the extra secondary 
> beams manually ...).
>
> Well, deep in my heart I also feel we shouldn't support incorrect 
> notation, and so I'm inclined to throw it out again (no big deal of 
> course) and only provide the #'base-moment option.
> While I wouldn't use it personally I can think of scores where the new 
> default beaming (with differing beam numbers on the different 
> positions) might look too inconsistent.

no matter whether it would ‘look inconsistent’ it would aid the 
performer to decipher the actual rhythm. If it’s a mere aestheticist 
idiosyncracy of the composer and practical considerations don’t matter – 
so be it. But I think it’s a strong point in LilyPond that it’s not only 
about beauty.
With perhaps a good explanation of this in the docs, I agree that we 
don’t need the #'one option.

Yours, Simon