[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Christian Mondrup wrote:
> > 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.
> You used a somewhat unfair example. Check the result when the movement
> continues like (I did not adjust the heights of the following beams):
>
> Meter: C
> Style: Solo
> S4: Voices S1 S2 S3 S4; Clefs G G G G
> Style: S4
>
> c4+ c c a1 f+ e d | [ c b a g ][ f e d c ] e4 g | c2 b | a0
> c4+ c c [-1+4 a1 f+ e d ] | c b a g f e d c e4 g | c2 b | a0
> c4 c c a1 f+ e d | c d e f g a b c g8 a g b | c2 b | a0
> c4 c c [-2+4 a1 f+ e d ] | c d e f g a b c g8 a g b | c2 b | a0
Your counter-example doesn't change my point of view. I definitely prefer the
beaming in the second part for that in the first part.
I'm inclined to think that we have to do with personal taste. I'm not able to
argue otherwise than to me the second part is aesthetically more satisfactory.
Maybe Don shouldn't invest too much work in special cases like the current if we
take into consideration that pmx/mtx users like humble me would modify any default
beaming behaviour in cases like this one anyway :-)
--
Christian Mondrup, Computer Programmer
Scandiatransplant, Skejby Hospital, University Hospital of Aarhus
Brendstrupgaardsvej, DK 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark
Phone: +45 89 49 53 01
