On 1/10/2011 2:11 PM, dc wrote:
In 6/8, how can I get Finale to not beam together notes that are separated
by rests (two 8ths separated by a rest, for instance)?
Make sure your time signature is 6 x eighth note, not 2 x dotted
quarter. Or use Utilities | Rebeam to Time Signature to accomplish
On 1/10/2011 3:32 PM, dc wrote:
I want:
8 8 8 beamed (in the same beat, of course)
but not
8 _ 8
Well, you can break all the beams by hand, of course, but that's not a
great solution if you're talking about a long passage.
You can also do this with TGTools Bream Breaker.
Aaron.
On 1/10/2011 3:15 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
On 1/10/2011 2:11 PM, dc wrote:
In 6/8, how can I get Finale to not beam together notes that are
separated
by rests (two 8ths separated by a rest, for instance)?
Make sure your time signature is 6 x eighth note, not 2 x dotted
quarter. Or use
try
document optionsbeaming
Mark
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, dc den...@free.fr wrote:
From: dc den...@free.fr
Subject: {Spam} Re: [Finale] beaming question
To: finale@shsu.edu, finale@shsu.edu
Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 3:32 PM
Aaron Sherber écrit:
Make sure your time signature is 6 x
If there are a large number of bars in a row to be fixed you can also
use the 6 x 8 time signature with 'different sig for display' so that
finale doesn't add a redundant time sig announcement.
Steve P.
On 10 Jan 2011, at 20:49, David H. Bailey wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:15 PM, Aaron Sherber
I'm not near finale now, but there is a document option called beam over
rests that can be turned on or off, isn't there?
Sent from my iPhone, so please pardon all the typos.
On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:26 PM, dc den...@free.fr wrote:
David H. Bailey écrit:
In Finale these days it seems we have a
No, the option is to extend the beam over a rest to the right side of the beam.
Steve P.
On 10 Jan 2011, at 21:29, Williams, Jim jwilli...@franklincollege.edu wrote:
I'm not near finale now, but there is a document option called beam over
rests that can be turned on or off, isn't there?
On 1/10/2011 4:23 PM, dc wrote:
Couldn't a plug-in check this and remove all the beams over rests?
TGTools Beam Breaker
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
At 03:11 PM 1/15/2006, Mike Greensill wrote:
I've forgotten how to prevent Finale from beaming across all 4 eight
note beats when writing two eight notes, an eight note rest, then an
eight note.
Options | Document Options | Beams. Uncheck 'Include rests when
beaming in groups of four'. Note
It's in Options:Document Options:Beamimg. There's a check box to beam 8th
notes in groups of 4 in common time, also one to include rests in the groups
or not.
(And you should upgrade to 2006c).
John Roberts
On 1/15/06 3:11 PM, Mike Greensill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've forgotten how to
Options | Document Options | Beams
Thanks guys, that's it! If only I could remember settings in Finale
as well as tunes I learnt 40 years ago.
Mike Greensill
www.mikegreensill.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Kim Richmond wrote:
I have two beats filled with a dotted eight, a sixteen, and two eighth
notes. How do I get them to beam together (on a regular basis)?
All the best,
KIM R
Assuming 4/4...
If you select the time signature tool, double click the first
Christopher Smith wrote:Assuming 4/4... If you select the time signature tool, double click the first measure, and click More Options, you can have 4/4 display while Finale thinks it is in 2/2. Then beaming will be to the half note by default. The only problem with this is that Finale will only
On Dec 23, 2005, at 8:05 PM, John Bell wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
Assuming 4/4...
If you select the time signature tool, double click the first
measure, and click More Options, you can have 4/4 display while
Finale thinks it is in 2/2. Then beaming will be to the half note by
D. Fenton:
I
don't feel the non-beaming [of old vocal music] conveys anything
useful that is not quite
clear from word continuation symbols along with judiciously-placed
slurs.
A problem arises, though, when you have a vocal part with slurs in the
original. In the old style of vocal
On Nov 6, 2005, at 7:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Why would one keep the beam breaks and then discard most of the
reversed beams?
I don't believe either Johannes or I gave any indication of how many of
the reversed beams we discarded.
Yes, sometimes these give indications about register
On 07.11.2005 Andrew Stiller wrote:
Why would one keep the beam breaks and then discard most of the
reversed beams?
I don't believe either Johannes or I gave any indication of how many
of the reversed beams we discarded.
Actually, I do discard most of them. The only exception I can think
On 7 Nov 2005 at 8:49, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
In 18th century sources reversed beams can happen (and are likely to
happen) whenever there is a larger leap within a beamed group. That's
all there is to it, imo.
But leaps mean something and the reversed beams, I believe, help mark
them
Just so you don't get me wrong: I am not trying to convince you of anything.
On 07.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
But leaps mean something and the reversed beams, I believe, help mark
them clearly. To me, by removing them, you are removing one of the
clues to contour that could be helpful to a
At 10:22 AM +0100 11/6/05, dc wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
Johannes and Dennis C., and any others who edit older music, do you
think there's anything in the beaming angle of the original sources
that might be worth preserving? Do you also try to preserve the
beaming breaks and reversed beams?
On Nov 5, 2005, at 3:20 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 05.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
Johannes and Dennis C., and any others who edit older music, do you
think there's anything in the beaming angle of the original sources
that might be worth preserving?
No.
Do you also try to preserve
On 6 Nov 2005 at 10:56, John Howell wrote:
In my own editing, my goal is to make the music
intelligible to modern singers while retaining as
much as possible of what I consider important in
the original. In renaissance vocal music this
includes removing bar lines (and eliminating ties
On 6 Nov 2005 at 11:50, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Nov 5, 2005, at 3:20 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 05.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
Johannes and Dennis C., and any others who edit older music, do you
think there's anything in the beaming angle of the original sources
that might be
On 07.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
I'd have to agree with this.
Why would one keep the beam breaks and then discard most of the
reversed beams? How do you know you're not discarding potentially
useful musical information?
Well, it is quite obvious to me that beam breaks can mean
I'd say horizontal. I don't know of any theoretical rule here, but to
me the slanted beam just doesn't look right.
Michael Cook
On 5 Nov 2005, at 12:55, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The following 8th notes (treble clef)
b (on 1st top ledger line), g, e, g, (all same octave), beamed
together
That was my impression, too. Only, the publisher has just send me a file
back, asking lots of such situations to be slanted. Looks very strange
to me, but what can I do?
Johannes
On 05.11.2005 Michael Cook wrote:
I'd say horizontal. I don't know of any theoretical rule here, but
to me the
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Looks very strange
to me, but what can I do?
You aren't going to find any rulebook that tells you whether that beam
should be slanted or not. Is this not a case where you make the customer
pay? Obviously, I don't know the details of your contract, but if it
were
On Nov 5, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The following 8th notes (treble clef)
b (on 1st top ledger line), g, e, g, (all same octave), beamed
together (beam below).
Should this beam be horizontal, or slanted (down, obviously)?
I can't really find a similar case in Ross.
In
On 05.11.2005 Robert Patterson wrote:
You aren't going to find any rulebook that tells you whether that
beam should be slanted or not. Is this not a case where you make the
customer pay? Obviously, I don't know the details of your contract,
but if it were me, any edits requiring significant
On Nov 5, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The following 8th notes (treble clef)
b (on 1st top ledger line), g, e, g, (all same octave), beamed
together (beam below).
Should this beam be horizontal, or slanted (down, obviously)?
If you mean this literally, that is, B above the
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
That was my impression, too. Only, the publisher has just send me a file
back, asking lots of such situations to be slanted. Looks very strange
to me, but what can I do?
Until you've cashed their check, nothing except make them slanted.
I'd vote for horizontal as
On 05.11.2005 Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Nov 5, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The following 8th notes (treble clef)
b (on 1st top ledger line), g, e, g, (all same octave), beamed
together (beam below).
Should this beam be horizontal, or slanted (down, obviously)?
If you mean
Hi Johannes,
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
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
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
On 05.11.2005 Chuck Israels wrote:
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
On 05.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
Johannes and Dennis C., and any others who edit older music, do you
think there's anything in the beaming angle of the original sources
that might be worth preserving?
No.
Do you also try to preserve the
beaming breaks and reversed beams?
Beaming
Dennis Collins writes:
I have a 17th-century piece for three instruments and basso continuo
where the continuo part actually doubles whatever happens to be the
lowest of the three parts. Which means there are quite a few clef
changes when it switches from a treble instrument to a bass
On 22 May 2004 at 21:00, d. collins wrote:
I have a 17th-century piece for three instruments and basso continuo
where the continuo part actually doubles whatever happens to be the
lowest of the three parts. Which means there are quite a few clef
changes when it switches from a treble
39 matches
Mail list logo
