Re: Gould &c. question

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> On 11.07.2016 22:33, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 7/11/16 7:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> what do the authorities say on beaming something like this:
>>>
>>> %%%%%%%%%%
>>> \version "2.19.45"
>>> {
>>>    \time 2/2
>>>    \repeat unfold 4 { \tuplet 6/4 { c16 e g c' g e } }
>>> }
>>> %%%%%%%%%%
>>>
>>> Currently, it¹s beamed by half-measure, which I think impairs
>>> legibility, so I introduced a patch changing this to beaming by quarter
>>> note value (issue 4919).
>> The authorities say to beam by the beat, which is the half measure.  I
>> think that's why the default is what it is.
>
> However, somewhere one has to draw the line – it’s certainly not an
> option to have 16 32nd notes beamed together (unless subdivided).

In 2/2 splitting up the beams sub-beat is just wrong.  Now we have the
"unless subdivided" moniker here and LilyPond should likely do more in
_that_ respect.  In particular when beaming over several tuplet groups,
a subdivision corresponding to the number-carrying groups seems pretty
much mandatory to me irrespective of whether one uses binary subdivision
schemes (which I often find overdoing it) elsewhere.

> And I’d draw it just below 16th notes.

For subdivision, yes.  But splitting beams completely inside of a beat
does not make sense automatically since we are then talking about a
judicious breach of rules, and that really should be done manually.

-- 
David Kastrup