[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Don:
>
> this is indeed an intriguing question, because there are
> certainly no rules how the slope of beams should be chosen.
> In the case you described that led to the ambiguity, I would predict that
> 90% would chose a small negative slope to emphasize the
> descending line, despite the fact that the height of the
> last note is substantially higher than the first one.
I don't completely agree. Below is a small four part mtx example with the
same little melody in all parts but with different beam directions and slpoe
resp. The two upper staves contain Don's/Werner's 16'th note figure in the
original octave while it is an octave lower in two lower parts. In parts 2
and 4 I have inverted the slope from that obtained by pmx200's behaviour. In
the case with stems down I definitely prefer the corrected beaming slope but
I'm not quite so sure that I also do in stems up case.
Maybe some 'golden' handed over engraving rules or traditions may throw light
on that matter.
>
> I am not sure whether this small differences can be formulated
> by an algorithm. It is obvious that small corrections must
> be always made, because the computer can not be taught to understand
> music. Nevertheless, I have the impression that the 1-note differences
> should have a larger weight: since three of them are negative and only
> one of them positive (regardless of its large value 5),
> in ambiguous cases the trend of the majority should decide to tip
> the balance, in this case towards the negative value.
>
> Christof
Meter: C
Style: Solo
S4: Voices S1 S2 S3 S4; Clefs G G G G
Style: S4
c4+ c c a1 f+ e d | e4 d c b | c2 b | a0
c4+ c c [-1+4 a1 f+ e d ] | e4 d c b | c2 b | a0
c4 c c a1 f+ e d | e4 d c b | c2 b | a0
c4 c c [-2+4 a1 f+ e d ] | e4 d c b | c2 b | a0
--
Christian Mondrup, Computer Programmer
Scandiatransplant, Skejby Hospital, University Hospital of Aarhus
Brendstrupgaardsvej, DK 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark
Phone: +45 89 49 53 01
