Years ago one would put - say - a run from low to high on the treble
staff, then simply pull the lower notes down to the bass staff. The
beam would remain, connecting the run across the space between the
staves.
No more, apparently. Can someone tell me how to do this in 2011?
It's still the same. In the Note Mover tool, make sure you select Cross Staff
in the menu, then click the measure, drag across the notes you want to move and
drag them down.
Christopher
On Sun Dec 4, at SundayDec 4 9:36 PM, Katherine Hoover wrote:
Years ago one would put - say - a
Hi Chris,
Actually, it's easier (and you get better beaming results) to use the new
shortcut, which is (on Mac) opt-shift-down arrow/opt-shift-up arrow with notes
selected in the Selection Tool:
http://blog.finalemusic.com/post/2011/06/28/Finale-QuickTips-Cross-Staff-Beaming.aspx
Cheers,
-
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]
Why would they have to do that? Counting is counting, isn't it? Doesn't make
sense to me.
True -- but suggesting that counting is counting assumes
that all musicians are able to think of the counting while
playing, which isn't true in my experience. I
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 10:48 am, dhbailey wrote:
But to get to my statement which you quoted, I'm not sure
why it should bother you. It seems like a tautology that if
the performers don't understand the notation they won't
perform the music correctly.
I'm talking
At 5:01 PM -0400 6/1/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 1 Jun 2010 at 14:59, John Howell wrote:
So this is quite a different problem from Dennis's, in which he wants
barlines but differently in each part.
Actually, I don't think it is.
And the more I think about it, the more I agree.
[snip]
The other issue is one of correction. If the beats are clearly delineated with
beams/ties, when you make a sight-reading mistake, it is easy to get back on
track on the next downbeat. If you have something like (in 4/4):
3 eighths beamed - dotted quarter - quarter tied over barline to... |
At 12:51 AM -0400 6/2/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
I feel no compunction to
avoid converting idiomatic material from the one medium into
different material that is idiomatically equivalent in the new
medium.
I guess that seems to be contradictory, since I said as little
intervention as possible
On 2 Jun 2010 at 11:42, John Howell wrote:
I find the
independent meters much more confusing than letting the notes
themselves define their inner subdivisions.
Perhaps this was an infelicitous choice of words, but to me, this is
missing the point -- it's not subdivisions that are at issue,
At 7:46 AM -0400 6/2/10, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I'm talking about a willing ignorance. Karkoschka's book came out 40 years
ago, and it was encyclopedic -- a summing up of what was already in use.
Dennis: You may have a valid complaint, but at least aim it where it
At 11:53 AM -0400 6/2/10, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Notating that figure in a more conventional way, so that the
beams/ties show the 4/4 but the accents indicate the 3+3+3+4+3 makes
it a lot more likely that the music will be read correctly in the
first place, and helps prevent any mistakes
On 2 Jun 2010 at 7:14, dhbailey wrote:
Obscure those rhythms by beaming to the
phrasing and the number of people who can't count grows.
Note that in repertory to which its applicable, I have argued that
beaming used for phrasing should never obscure the underlying beats.
(except, of course,
On Wed, June 2, 2010 7:46 am, dhbailey wrote:
Unfortunately, the book is currently unavailable in either
English or German, which makes learning these things a bit
more difficult these days. There aren't even any used
copies available through Amazon
Abebooks has it for $475, with bargain
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 3:25 pm, Graeme Gerrard wrote:
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or things only in
a defined way, that helps to determine what becomes canonic.
Innovations that composers might have initiated are restrained by an
Graeme Gerrard wrote:
This raises an important issue in the development of notation.
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or things only in a
defined way, that helps to determine what becomes canonic.
Innovations that composers might have initiated are restrained by an
On Tue, June 1, 2010 6:47 am, dhbailey wrote:
On the other hand, as their teacher, you have a golden
opportunity to knock down the walls of confinement which the
notation of the past have constructed around new music.
Nobody can know everything before getting to a certain
teacher, so teach
On Tue, June 1, 2010 6:45 am, dhbailey wrote:
It's all well and good for a composer to feel that some new
notational device is necessary for correct communication of
what he/she wants the music to sound like, but if nobody
among the performers understands it, will the music ever be
performed
On Mon, May 31, 2010 9:51 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
I suppose what we are up in arms about is composers (we ALL know
them!) who write strange things either because they don't know any
better, or are looking for ways to make their music difficult to
understand as a substitute for actual
On Tue Jun 1, at TuesdayJun 1 7:58 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 9:51 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
I suppose what we are up in arms about is composers (we ALL know
them!) who write strange things either because they don't know any
better, or are looking for ways to make
On 31 May 2010, at 8:55 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So here's the problem. Composers are gold you shouldn't indicate phrasing with
slurs because string players might think it's bowing.
Don't you generally want bowing to coincide with phrasing?
You can't add accents
because they would
On Tue, June 1, 2010 10:28 am, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Don't you generally want bowing to coincide with phrasing?
Generally but certainly not always. When the phrase is longer than the bowing,
I will put in a phrasing slur and let the section leader figure out how to
split the bowing among the
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 6:45 am, dhbailey wrote:
It's all well and good for a composer to feel that some new
notational device is necessary for correct communication of
what he/she wants the music to sound like, but if nobody
among the performers understands it, will
Hi Dennis,
I use accents, dynamics, and slurs as appropriate, but I also rely on the
musical instincts of the performers to find the lines and shape the phrases
appropriately. It's obviously easier when I am the one conducting the work, but
I also feel that performances of my work where I'm
Hi Dennis,
Certainly that sort of thing seems preferable to a confusing mismash of odd
beam groupings that require the performers to pencil in all the downbeats
below the part in order to be able to follow the conductor.
I should add that this was not my impression of the piece you posted,
At 9:06 PM -0400 5/31/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
In the repertory my viol consort plays, we are constantly fighting
the syncopation problem, in that the music is actually polymetric,
but never notated in any way but with barlines that line up in all
the parts. I don't care how gifted a player
On 31 May 2010 at 21:29, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
The first time I sang Ma Bouche Rit with an ensemble (ca. 1969) I
realized something was very wrong with HAM's barlines. This was still
fairly early in the reappearance of pre-Baroque music, so there we
were scrabbling around trying to make
On 31 May 2010 at 21:44, Mark D Lew wrote:
There's a song I sing that goes back and forth between 3/4 and 6/8
throughout, and with the voice and accompaniment sometimes not
matching, but the whole thing is written in 6/8 and beamed
accordingly. I wish I had an edition in which all the
On Tue Jun 1, at TuesdayJun 1 2:59 PM, John Howell wrote:
My approach (and frustrations) mirror David's exactly. And for
both of us it comes from the fact that some of the music we play,
and edit, did not use barlines in the first place, and was not
conceived to use barlines. Nor did it
On 1 Jun 2010 at 6:45, dhbailey wrote:
It's all well and good for a composer to feel that some new
notational device is necessary for correct communication of
what he/she wants the music to sound like, but if nobody
among the performers understands it, will the music ever be
performed
On Tue, June 1, 2010 3:53 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
you'd be doing the music a favor in
liberating it from notational restrictions imposed on it by the
limitations of its creator.
Perhaps one of the finest lines you have written, David. I want to put it on
my business card: 40 years of
Friends,
Where John wrote, in part:
The major problem is that both Finale and Sibelius INSIST on relating
everything to bars, so even if the barlines are not there, the programs
think they are, and they will tie notes across non-existent barlines
rather than allow simple note values.
I find
On 1 Jun 2010 at 7:42, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
This is a typical hammer-nail problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument and, to return to
the original topic, restricts beaming to time signature rules and
reveals the gap between practice and its representation.
I still
On Tue, June 1, 2010 4:00 pm, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I concede that Finale relates everything to bars, but since a finale bar
can contain (on Windows, since FIN 2k) 100 whole notes to a bar, I don't
find this to be a particularly limiting restriction.
This would be true if it worked.
On 1 Jun 2010 at 10:28, Darcy James Argue wrote:
When I work with a new group of musicians (as I did last week), I do
have to remind them that any barlines are for ease of reading only,
and to read the accents on the page, not the accents they would expect
based on the time signature. But I
On 1-Jun-10, at 1-Jun-10 4:18 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 3:53 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
you'd be doing the music a favor in
liberating it from notational restrictions imposed on it by the
limitations of its creator.
Perhaps one of the finest lines you have
On 1 Jun 2010 at 14:59, John Howell wrote:
So this is quite a different problem from Dennis's, in which he wants
barlines but differently in each part.
Actually, I don't think it is.
Even though the original notation had no barlines, there were clearly
metrical groupings, 3s and 4s and in
On 1 Jun 2010 at 16:18, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 3:53 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
you'd be doing the music a favor in
liberating it from notational restrictions imposed on it by the
limitations of its creator.
Perhaps one of the finest lines you have written,
On Tue, June 1, 2010 5:04 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
It would replace the Believe me, I hear the passion in your playing,
the drive, the dedication. I hear how fervently you wish you were
Miles Davis. And I agree. I wish you were Miles Davis, too. that I
got off of Dial M for Musicology,
On 1-Jun-10, at 1-Jun-10 5:20 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 5:04 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
It would replace the Believe me, I hear the passion in your playing,
the drive, the dedication. I hear how fervently you wish you were
Miles Davis. And I agree. I wish you
David W. Fenton wrote:
But your last paragraph reads like the fears of a timid editor of a
critical edition, one who is afraid to commit to an interpretation,
and thus abdicates responsibility for committing to one best text.
Oh, I was just acknowledging the reality that when you copy a piece
At 9:13 AM -0400 6/1/10, Christopher Smith wrote:
The thing that drives me nuts (well, about my students and young
composers who bring works in for reading, so maybe I get exposed to
it more) is when a perfectly conventional gesture is written in a
way that makes it incomprehensible. They
Hi David,
In my music there are generally multiple rhythmic streams going on
simultaneously. For ease of coordination and conducting, there needs to be a
single common notational meter, regardless of what meter is implied by the
individual lines. This happens quite a lot in contemporary jazz.
At 10:28 AM -0400 6/1/10, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 8:55 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So here's the problem. Composers are gold you shouldn't indicate
phrasing with
slurs because string players might think it's bowing.
Don't you generally want bowing to coincide with
At 10:42 AM -0400 6/1/10, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 10:28 am, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Don't you generally want bowing to coincide with phrasing?
Generally but certainly not always. When the phrase is longer than the bowing,
I will put in a phrasing slur and let the
At 12:47 PM -0400 6/1/10, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I am surprised to learn that your experience is that performers
loathe the square bracket above, which seems to me the most
obvious solution to your problem!
Please forgive a very traditional musician, but what in the world
would a square
At 3:49 PM -0400 6/1/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
We still encounter editions that don't get the barring right that are
quite recent.
Yes. There are at least two semi-modern editions of dance pieces
originally published by Theilman Susato, and in both the Galliards
are barred incorrectly.
At 3:00 PM -0500 6/1/10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I concede that Finale relates everything to bars, but since a finale
bar can contain (on Windows, since FIN 2k) 100 whole notes to a bar,
I don't find this to be a particularly limiting restriction.
Yes, Sibelius will do that, too. (Mosaic
On Tue, June 1, 2010 7:52 pm, John Howell wrote:
That might work if it's a section leader you've worked with before
who understand what you want, but it is NOT the usual way it's done.
I write what it should sound like. You don't really think I'm going to write
bowings just so's they can change
On Tue, June 1, 2010 10:48 am, dhbailey wrote:
But to get to my statement which you quoted, I'm not sure
why it should bother you. It seems like a tautology that if
the performers don't understand the notation they won't
perform the music correctly.
I'm talking about a willing ignorance.
On Tue, June 1, 2010 12:47 pm, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I use accents, dynamics, and slurs as appropriate, but I also rely on the
musical instincts of the performers to find the lines and shape the phrases
appropriately. It's obviously easier when I am the one conducting the work,
but I also
On Tue, June 1, 2010 3:49 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
HAM was, at least, quite old, from before the time when this music
had been studied at great length.
Not exactly great length outside a limited academic world. HAM was only 18
years old when I studied from it, and I was performing this on the
On 1 Jun 2010, at 9:49 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Why would they have to do that? Counting is counting, isn't it? Doesn't make
sense to me.
To get away from counting and play with rhythmic authority and conviction.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
Great music. Needlessly difficult-to-read notation.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 1 Jun 2010, at 9:30 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Okay, forget me. Turn to one of the masters -- Bartók's string quartets ...
the 4th from 1928, fourth fifth movements, full
On Jun 1, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Counting is counting, isn't it?
Not really. Some people count additively, from left to right, starting over at
bar lines. Others (including me) are trained by their experience to count in
divisions according to beats, which can work
At 6:07 PM -0400 6/1/10, Mark D Lew wrote:
Oh, I was just acknowledging the reality that when you copy a piece
and make editorial decisions, you are necessarily drawing
conclusions that the composer might not have intended.
Very true, but with a few exceptions that come to mind. As a
John Howell wrote:
I haven't tried this, but it could be done as 3 (or more as needed)
separate scores exported and assembled on the pages, I would think. But
if we're transcribing into modern notation in the first place, I can't
think of a reason to do this. Extracting separate parts would
On 1 Jun 2010 at 20:17, John Howell wrote:
Please forgive a very traditional musician, but what in the world
would a square bracket above indicate? It would mean nothing to me,
so I would have to ignore it. (As David said regarding new notation
that is not universally understood.)
I
On 1 Jun 2010 at 21:30, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I certainly am saying that a mere four or five accents marks can be
crude and insufficient and misleading tools, and that other means may
be necessary to get across the sense of stress or phrasing.
Hmm. I was with you up until this. To me,
On Wed Jun 2, at WednesdayJun 2 12:23 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I understood immediately what he meant by it. Something like this:
p. 4, m. 67, tenor part
http://tinyurl.com/2f8g4kn =
http://tearesofthemuses.com/Editions/Scores/Trio/Byrd-Walsingham-
%e03.pdf
It's a case where I want to
At 12:23 AM -0400 6/2/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 1 Jun 2010 at 20:17, John Howell wrote:
Please forgive a very traditional musician, but what in the world
would a square bracket above indicate? It would mean nothing to me,
so I would have to ignore it. (As David said regarding new
On 1 Jun 2010 at 23:47, John Howell wrote:
[]
in the specific case of editing early music, the original
notation very often suggests very different interpretations from what
we think the composer might have intended, so just as a performer
bridges the gap between composer and audience, we
On 2 Jun 2010 at 0:30, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Wed Jun 2, at WednesdayJun 2 12:23 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I understood immediately what he meant by it. Something like this:
p. 4, m. 67, tenor part
http://tinyurl.com/2f8g4kn =
On 2 Jun 2010 at 0:40, John Howell wrote:
At 12:23 AM -0400 6/2/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 1 Jun 2010 at 20:17, John Howell wrote:
Please forgive a very traditional musician, but what in the world
would a square bracket above indicate? It would mean nothing to
me, so I would have
According to Hoyle, or whoever the expert may be ... is the Re-beam
for Lyrics tool now passe?
Dean
I have opened my soul/To let in the warmth of sound/Now my saving grace
Adrian Estabrook, author
Dean M. Estabrook
http://sites.google.com/site/deanestabrook/
Yes.
Beams are for unambiguously indicating beat divisions and subdivisions. Trying
to get beams to indicate other things (syllabification, phrasing, etc) is a
tradition I'm very happy to see die.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 31 May 2010, at 12:19 PM, Dean
Ah, two things ... thank you, and ... where the hell have I been
for the last decade or two? However, I'm probably more to be pitied
than censored ... I hit the big 70 next week.
Dean
On May 31, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Yes.
Beams are for unambiguously indicating
On 31 May 2010 at 12:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Beams are for unambiguously indicating beat divisions and
subdivisions. Trying to get beams to indicate other things
(syllabification, phrasing, etc) is a tradition I'm very happy to see
die.
I'm not as categorical, but that may be because I
At 2:50 PM -0400 5/31/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 31 May 2010 at 12:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Beams are for unambiguously indicating beat divisions and
subdivisions. Trying to get beams to indicate other things
(syllabification, phrasing, etc) is a tradition I'm very happy to see
die.
On May 31, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
According to Hoyle, or whoever the expert may be ... is the Re-
beam for Lyrics tool now passe?
Are you asking if the tool still works, or whether no one uses that
style anymore?
I like the modern beaming convention. Beaming to
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
Not sure whose rule it is that beams are for beat divisions. Sometimes beat
divisions and metrical divisions aren't the same. I always use beaming for
metrical divisions that conflict with time signatures.
As for lyrics, I remain of two minds. It
On 31 May 2010 at 15:04, John Howell wrote:
I have ALWAYS used
instrumental beaming in my vocal arrangements because it is so much
easier to read, and non-beaming conveys no useful information.
I certainly do that myself, though I reserve the right to break beams
on syllables where it's also
This raises an important issue in the development of notation.
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or things only in a
defined way, that helps to determine what becomes canonic.
Innovations that composers might have initiated are restrained by an industry
model that is
On Mon, May 31, 2010 3:25 pm, Graeme Gerrard wrote:
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or things only in
a defined way, that helps to determine what becomes canonic.
Innovations that composers might have initiated are restrained by an industry
model that is about
I knew there was something I liked about Igor ...
Dean
On May 31, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
Not sure whose rule it is that beams are for beat divisions.
Sometimes beat
divisions and metrical divisions aren't the same. I
No, no my tool still works fine ... which, considering my age
is remarkable ... I was asking about notational convention(s).
Looks like I just need to adjust to the times.
Dean
On May 31, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
On Mon May 31, at MondayMay 31 2:50 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
WELL...
He changed his mind a few times about rhythmic notation throughout
his career, most likely to make things more clear to the performer,
as far as I can see. I don't
Stravinsky's music is of course notoriously easy to sight-read.
[grin]
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 31 May 2010, at 2:50 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
___
Finale
At 5:25 AM +1000 6/1/10, Graeme Gerrard wrote:
This raises an important issue in the development of notation.
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or
things only in a defined way, that helps to determine what becomes
canonic.
Innovations that composers might have
On Mon, May 31, 2010 4:06 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
I wouldn't want to put odd notation in front of a
sight-reading orchestra musician today; I would want it as clear as
possible.
So here's the problem. Composers are gold you shouldn't indicate phrasing with
slurs because string players
On 31 May 2010 at 20:55, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So what's the solution? I just expect musicians to understand that
beaming primarily indicates organization in linear time -- *not*
organization to time signatures. (We used to call that the tyranny of
the barline.)
For music that is
(We used to call that the tyranny of the barline.)
Like Bartók's tyranny of the major and minor modes?
Aaron J. Rabushka
arabus...@austin.rr.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On Mon, May 31, 2010 9:06 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
For music that is metrical and an organization according to the
barline, it is, I think, foolish to contradict that with beaming,
unless the point is to explicitly indicate that something is
happening in contradistinction to the underlying
On Mon May 31, at MondayMay 31 8:55 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 4:06 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
I wouldn't want to put odd notation in front of a
sight-reading orchestra musician today; I would want it as clear as
possible.
So here's the problem. Composers are
On May 31, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I've broken beams from the beat a few times, when it conveys the
information better. A few unassailable examples:
3/4 + 6/8 in alternating measures even when it isn't marked in the
time signature (and other types of hemiola),
three
maybe the beam options setting allow rests to float could help at
least somewhat? i don't think there is anything in patterson beams
to do this.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
input. You should be able to restore the rests to their original
positions.
Ian
- Original Message -
From: dc den...@free.fr
To: finale-shsu.edu finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:41 PM
Subject: [Finale] beams over rests
I have a piece where 16th rests alternate
Somehow I tweaked my beam settings so that notes aren't automatically beamed
when I enter using Speedy. I'm working around this problem by highlighting the
entered music and choosing Rebeam from the Utilities menu.
I can't remember exactly what my steps were prior to having this problem. Any
I figured it out. I had unchecked Check Beaming under the Speedy menu for
some reason. All is well. Nothing to see here. Move along.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
I want to extend 16th note beams over rests in one particular measure
without setting it that way for the entire file. Does anyone have a
simple/clever workaround for this? (And wouldn't it be nice if this
option
could be turned on and
On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:52 AM, Lee Actor wrote:
I don't think that works in the case of four 16ths where the first and
last
are rests. Or maybe I don't understand your method?
You're right. I didn't realize you were asking for the rests to be at
the end of the beam.
In that case, I'd do
On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:52 AM, Lee Actor wrote:
I don't think that works in the case of four 16ths where the first and
last
are rests. Or maybe I don't understand your method?
You're right. I didn't realize you were asking for the rests to be at
the end of the beam.
In that case, I'd
I want to extend 16th note beams over rests in one particular measure
without setting it that way for the entire file. Does anyone have a
simple/clever workaround for this? (And wouldn't it be nice if this option
could be turned on and off for selected measures within a piece?)
Lee Actor
Lee Actor wrote:
I want to extend 16th note beams over rests in one particular measure
without setting it that way for the entire file. Does anyone have a
simple/clever workaround for this? (And wouldn't it be nice if this option
could be turned on and off for selected measures within a
I want to extend 16th note beams over rests in one particular measure
without setting it that way for the entire file. Does anyone have a
simple/clever workaround for this? (And wouldn't it be nice if
this option
could be turned on and off for selected measures within a piece?)
Lee Actor wrote:
I want to extend 16th note beams over rests in one particular measure
without setting it that way for the entire file. Does anyone have a
simple/clever workaround for this? (And wouldn't it be nice if
this option
could be turned on and off for selected measures within a
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
I want to extend 16th note beams over rests in one particular measure
without setting it that way for the entire file. Does anyone have a
simple/clever workaround for this? (And wouldn't it be nice if this
option
could be turned on and off for
96 matches
Mail list logo
