>> The Alain and Rachmaninov only have one fewer beam, so the beam
>> count between the groups is not appropriate for the lengths of the
>> subdivided groups, according to the Gould rules. Personally, I
>> think the Gould rules are correct, but two of the music publishers
>> in your example do not agree with me. And they should probably
>> have MUCH more credibility than I do.
>
> I think this is a typical case where the modern rules are “better”
> in that they allow for even more clarity in all situations, even if
> they are even more complex than these. And the rules followed in
> those Alain and Rachmaninov examples were good for the time and
> internally consistent; they don’t have any advantages per se over
> the modern rules, except that those composers used them to convey
> their ideas and changing the graphical appearance of the music will
> cause some change in how the musician perceives it. Alain and
> Rachmaninov didn’t have need for more thorough subdivision.
>
> Reger did: in his op. 73, even the first edition of 1904 already uses
> the full tool set of subdivision, over wide areas of the piece
> (starting, in this first edition, on the third page of
> music). https://imslp.org/wiki/File:Reger-op73.pdf
I had a quick look at the piece, and I couldn't find something
non-standard (in the LilyPond sense), contrary to the examples I gave
in another e-mail. Maybe I missed something, so please post images of
unusual subdivisions not covered with what LilyPond offers.
Werner
