On 6/20/18, 6:45 AM, "Urs Liska" wrote:
PS: As to the *why* I have the vague recollection that beaming rules define
where beams can be *ended*. This would explain why the beam before the break
doesn't work but the one after does.
Automatic beaming starts when a beamable note is
Hi Phil,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:26 PM Phil Holmes wrote:
>
> You could keep making odd examples of undefined beaming until the cows
> come home, but surely it would be a lot quicker just to beam manually???
>
I suppose, actually (and I'll talk to Urs about this) that since the
sources I'm
hil Holmes
> Cc: lilypond-user
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: weird de-beaming behavior
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
>On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Phil Holmes
>wrote:
>
>I'm no expert on lily's beaming system. However, in your second
>e
"N. Andrew Walsh" writes:
> Hi Phil,
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Phil Holmes wrote:
>
>> I'm no expert on lily's beaming system. However, in your second example
>> you don't break an existing beam with a bar/line break, so it's rather
>> different from the first where the "correct"
Cc: lilypond-user
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: weird de-beaming behavior
Hi Phil,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Phil Holmes wrote:
I'm no expert on lily's beaming system. However, in your second example
you don't break an existing beam with a bar/line
Hi Phil,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Phil Holmes wrote:
> I'm no expert on lily's beaming system. However, in your second example
> you don't break an existing beam with a bar/line break, so it's rather
> different from the first where the "correct" beaming was broken.
>
>
Not knowing
To: Phil Holmes
Cc: lilypond-user
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: weird de-beaming behavior
Hi Phil,
thanks for your message. The thing is, here's another example:
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
c e, g16 a b8
\bar "&
"N. Andrew Walsh" writes:
> Hi David
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case you have 3 beats before the break. The bar is complete.
>> In your first example you had only two.
>>
>
> Both MWEs are complete in themselves, thus the latter, with no \time
>
Hi David
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM David Kastrup wrote:
>
> In this case you have 3 beats before the break. The bar is complete.
> In your first example you had only two.
>
Both MWEs are complete in themselves, thus the latter, with no \time
statement, is in the default 4/4. Sorry, I
"N. Andrew Walsh" writes:
> Hi Phil,
>
> thanks for your message. The thing is, here's another example:
>
> \version "2.19.80"
>
> \relative c'' {
>
> c e, g16 a b8
> \bar "" \break
> r e, g16 a b8
> }
>
> The 'g16 a b8' in the first line is beamed correctly. Is this something
> peculiar to 3/4
Hi Phil,
thanks for your message. The thing is, here's another example:
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
c e, g16 a b8
\bar "" \break
r e, g16 a b8
}
The 'g16 a b8' in the first line is beamed correctly. Is this something
peculiar to 3/4 time?
Cheers,
A
>
-
From: N. Andrew Walsh
To: lilypond-user
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:26 AM
Subject: weird de-beaming behavior
Hi List,
I have the following MWE:
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
e8 d16 c d8 d
\bar "&qu
Hi List,
I have the following MWE:
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
e8 d16 c d8 d
\bar "" \break
g, f'~
}
Notice that the last two eighth-notes in that first line, in this case, are
un-beamed. However, when I comment out the next line (starting with the
13 matches
Mail list logo
