2017-01-06 0:04 GMT+01:00 Hans Aikema <hans.aik...@aikebah.net>: > >> On 5 Jan 2017, at 23:55, Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> wrote: >> >> On 05.01.2017 23:42, Hans Aikema wrote: >>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 23:16, Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> wrote: >>>>>> On 04.01.2017 15:01, Hans Åberg wrote: >>>>>>> This is just a quirk of the 4/4 [meter], also mentioned in Hindemith, >>>>>>> "Elementary Training", p. 30. In other words, the note should not cross >>>>>>> the 2nd and 4th metric accents, but it can cross the [3rd]. >>>> I’ve never heard of that and would assume it is a peculiarity in >>>> Hindemith. Can anyone cite Gould or similar on the topic? >>>> >>>> Best, Simon >>> Have Gould at hand, but I think it depends on interpretation of Gould p171 >>> in the section on Syncopation >>> >>> <quote> >>> The following common patterns are exceptions and should always be written >>> as follows >>> </quote> >>> >>> description of the image that follows for 4/4 time: >>> crotchet minim crotchet and not crotchet crotchet tie crotchet crotchet >>> >>> does that hold for ‘minim in the middle of the measure’ or just for an >>> exact crotchet minim crotchet measure? >> >> We are not talking about a simple syncopated rhythm like the one Gould lists >> as an exception (!). Of course it’s perfectly normal to write 4 2 4 in 4/4 >> time. >> But if the note has to be split with a tie anyway, then it should be split >> along the center of the measure first, unlike the NR hitherto did. >> 8 4.~ 4 4 >> not >> 8 8~ 2 4 >> >> Best, Simon > > How I read p171 is that those are common patterns that are NOT syncopated but > appear to be, as it follows the following snippet of text on Syncopation: > > Rhythms that should not be syncopated must divide note-values to expose the > beats of the bar: > > 4/4 time 4. 4 8 4 | will be accentuated as 3 + 3+ 2 quavers : 8/8 4.-> 4-> 8 > 4-> | > > unless written 4/4 4. 8~8 8 4 | > > The following common patterns……..
Hi all, reading the discussion I think a lot of valid arguments for this and that are stated. Afaict noone doubts the "not"-example is (usually) bad practise. So, why not show two possibilities? \relative { r8 c'~ 2 r4 | r8^"or even" c4.~ c4 r4 | r8^"not" c2~ 8 r4 } Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel