[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: split-subbeam direction
From: |
Spider |
Subject: |
Re: split-subbeam direction |
Date: |
Tue, 27 May 2003 10:21:37 -0700 (PDT) |
Yes, I don't get that either. That would mean for the first
half of my given measure (in bb.ly),
Lilypond gives this:
| | | |
| | | |
+--+--+--+
|--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|--+--+--+
| | | |
| | | |
but this is correct?
| | | |
| | | |
|---+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|---+--+--+ +--+--+--+
| | | |
| | | |
or this?
| | | |
| | | |
|---+--+--+ +--+--+--+
|---+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | |
| | | |
--- Rune Zedeler <address@hidden> wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>
> > We recently talked with Paul Roberts, a notation guru
> that explained
> > to us that it should really be
> >
> > | | | |
> > |----------------|--|--|
> > |---|--|--| |---|--|--|
> > | | | |
> >
> >
> > (the 1st stem determines the "direction" of the beam)
>
> I don't understand. Does this mean that
>
>
> | |
> | |
> | -+
> +--+--+
> +-
> |
> |
>
>
> is incorrect and should be
>
>
> | |
> | |
> +--+--+
> +- -+
> |
> |
>
>
> ?
>
> -Rune
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com