> On 10 Apr 2024, at 17:13, Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 10:23 AM Hans Åberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 8 Apr 2024, at 18:46, Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 08.04.24 18:22, Paul Scott wrote: >>>> Many years ago I could nest square brackets in Lilypond. How can I write >>>> this now incorrect code: >>>> >>>> a16[[ 16 16] 16[ 16 16]] i.e. two groups of 3 beamed 16th notes joined by >>>> a single beam. >>> >>> The question is: what is the context and why do you want this? >> >> In the past, it was possible to give 9/16 the beat structure [[2 2] [2 3]], >> as a 2/4 with an extra 1/16 at the end, like in the Bulgarian Daichovo, but >> currently it is only possible with [4 2 3] as in: >> \time 9/16 >> \set beatStructure = #'(4 2 3) >> Or [2 2 2 3]. But [[2 2] [2 3]] is easier to read. >> >>> Normally, this is called subdividing beams and there is a context property >>> to turn it on. This is explained in the NR at Rhythms -> Beams -> Setting >>> automatic beam behaviour (or similar). There have recently been significant >>> improvements to how LilyPond handles this, but IIRC it’s not fully ‘there’ >>> yet and in some situations manual intervention is needed besides defining >>> baseMoment etc. >> >> But this has not yet been implemented? > > So is the issue that you would like to have the final [2 3] beamed with a > pair of beamed 16th notes joined to a trio of beamed sixteenth notes by a > single beam?
Yes. > I could see that such a notation might be easy to read, but it violates the > mathematical beaming convention since the two subgroups joined by the single > beam are not each 1/8 in duration. I'm not saying this notation is > incorrect; I'm just saying that to implement it we would need to bypass the > normal convention.... The meter is like 2/4 but with one extra 1/16 on the last 1/8 metric sub-accent (or sub-beat), so the final [2 3] should be beamed together to properly express the relationship: If using 4+2+3, it suggests that the two last metric beats are equal. Likewise, (2+2)+(3+2) is a different meter, and 4+5 with no sub-beaming on the 5 would not make clear the metric beat structure. One can do the opposite, take away 1/16 on the last beat, 7 = (2+2)+3, as in the Bulgarian rachenitsa. Then I use 7 = 4+3, which looks fine, but it does not show the sub-beat in the 4 = 2+2. Using 7 = 2+2+3 would be wrong, because that suggests the beats between the last 2 and 3 are about equal.
