On Nov 5, 2005, at 11:40 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:

On 5 Nov 2005 at 10:03, Chuck Israels wrote:


Flat looks better to my eyes because the figure seems centered around
one note, even though the last note is lower than the first, and the
flat beam expresses that.  I even tried entering a descending figure
afterward, in order to see if that influenced my response - making
the passage an overall descending one, and the flat beam still seemed
more a pro pos.  That's just my personal reaction.


I've never paid much attention to beaming. Finale's early beaming
algorithms were truly horrid and looked just awful, and I recognized
that, but back then there was no way to fix it except by manually
tweaking practically every beam. So I ended up basically getting in
the habit of ignoring beaming.

Now, the default beams are much less odious (though still often
problematic) and running Patterson Beams gets me something that is
good enough for me.

But all of this discussion raises some interesting points. David
Bailey remarked that beam angle can provide useful analytical
information -- in a figure that is basically static (like an Alberti
bass) a flat beam conveys the static nature.

Chuck's remark above makes a related point, and makes me ask:


From a sight-reading point of view, from an analytical point of view,

what if you had 4-note static figures in a descending sequence? Would
it then be helpful to slightly slant the beams to give the overall
passage a descending motion? Or is it enough that each successive
group's beam is lower (though that won't always be the case because
of staff line avoidance)?

I tried this too, thinking the same thoughts as you, David, and I still preferred the flat beams. I think we are operating in an area of notation that combines visual "logic" with a substantial does of "what we're used to seeing," and I am just used to seeing flat beams for this kind of passage. My taste in this has been deeply influenced by the combination of using Johannes' recommended settings and Patterson Beam settings, and it took me a while to get used to the overall flatter look (and sometimes shorter stems) that this produces. Now I am so used to it, and so unhappy without it, that I apply the Patterson Beam plugin to areas I have just entered - while I am considering what to enter next, just to please my eyes.

Chuck






Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to