Re: weird de-beaming behavior
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 encountered and ends when a non-beamable note is encountered or a beam *must* end. If the music ends (say by a \bar" " \break or by hitting the end of a voice) before the required end of a beam is met or a non-beamable note is encountered, no beam is created. At the present time, the autobeam code doesn't grab a whole measure's worth of notes and then decide about the beaming; instead it makes decisions on a note-by-note basis. It would be nice to have a better autobeaming algorithm, and Urs and I are both looking at it. For now, anytime the autobeamer doesn't work right, just manually beam, and that resolves all of the problems. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
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 working from have their own idiosyncratic beaming (beaming over rests and grouped at the half-note, for example) that it might make sense at some point to define a stylesheet for each section, so that Lily knows in advance what the beaming scheme should be. Cheers, A ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
Am 20. Juni 2018 14:26:51 MESZ schrieb Phil Holmes :
>Well,
>
>This example is almost identical to your first example. A beamed note
>is broken by a bar and break and the beam is broken. Lily doesn't know
>how to beam them. The 2 leftover notes are beamed in both examples -
>again i don't know why, but it's quite consistent behaviour and
>consistent with lily not knowing what you intend until you tell her.
>
>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???
The problem is that this break is conditional, so it's not clear before whether
there will be a break within the measure.
\time 3/4
c8 [ c c c c c ]
Vs
c8 [ c c c ] \bar "" \break c [ c ]
That looks like a prime case for the \choice command I'll be doing shortly.
Urs
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.
>
>--
>Phil Holmes
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: N. Andrew Walsh
> To: Phil 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
>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 anything about how Lily works, I'm inclined to agree. in
>3/4 (at least here) a measure comprising only 8th-notes will be beamed
>straight through, thus (pseudo code):
>
>
> e8[ e c' c c c c]
>
>
> Whereas a 4/4 bar is beamed in two groups of four.
>
>
>So you're correct, that there's something going on with default beaming
>being broken up. In fact, with the following MWE (also in 4/4):
>
>
> \version "2.19.80"
>
>
> \relative c'' {
>
>
> c e, g8 a
> \bar "" \break
> g e g16 a b8
> }
>
>
>the "g8 a" at the end of the first line is *also* broken into two
>unbeamed 8th-notes, but the two that follow the break do not. Why would
>this be?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
"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" beaming was broken.
>>
>>
> Not knowing anything about how Lily works, I'm inclined to agree. in 3/4
> (at least here) a measure comprising only 8th-notes will be beamed straight
> through, thus (pseudo code):
>From "Automatic beams" in the manual:
_Beams across line breaks_
Line breaks are normally forbidden when beams cross bar lines. This
behavior can be changed as shown:
\relative c'' {
\override Beam.breakable = ##t
c8 c[ c] c[ c] c[ c] c[ \break
c8] c[ c] c[ c] c[ c] c
}
[image src="lilypond/b3/lily-4c62e333.png" alt="[image of music]"
text="image of music"]
Can this be related?
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
Well,
This example is almost identical to your first example. A beamed note is
broken by a bar and break and the beam is broken. Lily doesn't know how to
beam them. The 2 leftover notes are beamed in both examples - again i don't
know why, but it's quite consistent behaviour and consistent with lily not
knowing what you intend until you tell her.
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???
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: N. Andrew Walsh
To: Phil 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 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 anything about how Lily works, I'm inclined to agree. in 3/4 (at
least here) a measure comprising only 8th-notes will be beamed straight
through, thus (pseudo code):
e8[ e c' c c c c]
Whereas a 4/4 bar is beamed in two groups of four.
So you're correct, that there's something going on with default beaming being
broken up. In fact, with the following MWE (also in 4/4):
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
c e, g8 a
\bar "" \break
g e g16 a b8
}
the "g8 a" at the end of the first line is *also* broken into two unbeamed
8th-notes, but the two that follow the break do not. Why would this be?
Cheers,
A___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
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 break, so it's rather
> different from the first where the "correct" beaming was broken.
>
>
Not knowing anything about how Lily works, I'm inclined to agree. in 3/4
(at least here) a measure comprising only 8th-notes will be beamed straight
through, thus (pseudo code):
e8[ e c' c c c c]
Whereas a 4/4 bar is beamed in two groups of four.
So you're correct, that there's something going on with default beaming
being broken up. In fact, with the following MWE (also in 4/4):
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
c e, g8 a
\bar "" \break
g e g16 a b8
}
the "g8 a" at the end of the first line is *also* broken into two unbeamed
8th-notes, but the two that follow the break do not. Why would this be?
Cheers,
A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
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.
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: N. Andrew Walsh
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 "" \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
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
"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 > statement, is in the default 4/4. Sorry, I should have made that more > explicit. Would have helped against casual reading. Of which, for better or worse, some can be expected in Usenet groups. There is some special property only for 3-based meters (?) for half-bar beaming. I have no idea whether its implementation might be involved with that. Apart from beaming exceptions for 4/4 that sort of is what I can think of right now which could be different. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
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 should have made that more explicit. Cheers, A ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
"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 time?
In this case you have 3 beats before the break. The bar is complete.
In your first example you had only two.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
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 "" \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
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: weird de-beaming behavior
It strikes me that, by forcing a line break in the middle of a beam and in the
middle of a bar, you make it difficult for lily to work out what beaming you
actually want. Simple workaround: [ ] - manual beaming for this unusual
situation.
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
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 "" \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 \bar)
the notes are beamed together.
This seems … unintended, and also undesirable. Can you confirm that this
breaks for you as well, and let me know if there's a workaround, if this is a
bug, or what?
Cheers,
A
--
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
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 "" \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
\bar) the notes are beamed together.
This seems … unintended, and also undesirable. Can you confirm that this
breaks for you as well, and let me know if there's a workaround, if this is
a bug, or what?
Cheers,
A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
