Le Vendredi 7 Avril 2006 13:38, Bill Schottstaedt a écrit : > The "logic" in the 1/9 case > goes something like: if you ask for (say) triplets (i.e. n/3), you' re > putting 3 (say 8ths) in a quarter, so you get, for example, q + e = q. > If you ask for 5 divisions in a quarter, that's q + s = q, (or is it h + e > = q?) -- since the beat is closer to a 16th, this gets two beams, but the > problem for cmn is that in nested n-lets so to speak, you need to keep the > beams > logical (say a triplet within a triplet = 1/9) so the outer triplet, the > unbroken beam, has one beam, and the inner triplet is considered > 3 16ths in a triplet 1/8, so it ought to have 2 beams, but that means > a quarter at the outer level = h + s at the innermost level. You'll > notice in the code (just below the point you mention) a long comment > about the problem, all brought about by rqq.lisp and its fancy nested > groupings. I suppose we could add a flag to choose which style is > desired. (The factorization was trying to catch these nested cases -- > as you can see in the code I originally just chose the closest match > between flags and actual duration, but the experts disagree even on > this). > There is another simple rule : wholes : 1 halfs : 2 3 quarters : 4 5 6 7 8-th-s : 8 ... 15 [== 1 beam] 16-th-s : 16 ... 31 [== 2 beams]
=> 9 (equ. 18) == 2 beams Hm, but if the divisor is near 31, I would prefer 3 beams. Where is the limit ? ["chacun pour soi" :-)] One can find such "strange beam attractors" in Stockhausen's "Gruppen" -- René Bastian « Le progrès consiste plus que jamais dans l'apprentissage de l'abstraction et dans la rupture avec les images. » Jean-Michel Besnier (La croisée des sciences) _______________________________________________ Cmdist mailing list [email protected] http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
