Re: [Finale] beaming question
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 this. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
{Spam} Re: {Spam} Re: [Finale] beaming question
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. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
{Spam} Re: [Finale] beaming question
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 Utilities | Rebeam to Time Signature to accomplish this. In Finale these days it seems we have a choice -- if we want 3 8ths beamed together we need to choose 2 x dotted quarter, but this also forces 8ths in a half-measure to be beamed even when separated by an 8th rest. Or we can select 6 x 8th note but then we don't get any of the 8th notes beamed, even if we want them to be. So the best I can suggest is to select whichever meter is going to help more of the time and correct what's needed by hand each time (it's only a single key stroke to break those beams over the 8th rest). It's too bad in the Document Options dialog under Beaming there isn't an option to break 8th-note beams over a rest in 6/8 time. Yet another option for us to lobby MakeMusic for! Yippee! -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: {Spam} Re: [Finale] beaming question
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 eighth note, not
2 x dotted quarter. Or use Utilities | Rebeam to Time
Signature to accomplish this.
That was my first idea - but then three 8ths don't get
beamed together.
I want:
8 8 8 beamed (in the same beat, of course)
but not
8 _ 8
(where 8 = 8th note and _= 8th rest)
Dennis
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: {Spam} Re: [Finale] beaming question
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 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 Utilities | Rebeam to Time Signature to accomplish this. In Finale these days it seems we have a choice -- if we want 3 8ths beamed together we need to choose 2 x dotted quarter, but this also forces 8ths in a half-measure to be beamed even when separated by an 8th rest. Or we can select 6 x 8th note but then we don't get any of the 8th notes beamed, even if we want them to be. So the best I can suggest is to select whichever meter is going to help more of the time and correct what's needed by hand each time (it's only a single key stroke to break those beams over the 8th rest). It's too bad in the Document Options dialog under Beaming there isn't an option to break 8th-note beams over a rest in 6/8 time. Yet another option for us to lobby MakeMusic for! Yippee! -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] beaming question
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 choice -- if we want 3 8ths beamed together we need to choose 2 x dotted quarter, but this also forces 8ths in a half-measure to be beamed even when separated by an 8th rest. Or we can select 6 x 8th note but then we don't get any of the 8th notes beamed, even if we want them to be. So the best I can suggest is to select whichever meter is going to help more of the time and correct what's needed by hand each time (it's only a single key stroke to break those beams over the 8th rest). The 3/8 was just one example. In most cases, for the music I do, I don't want any rests at all under beams, and I find it strange that this doesn't seem to be a beaming option. Couldn't a plug-in check this and remove all the beams over rests? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] beaming question
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? 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 choice -- if we want 3 8ths beamed together we need to choose 2 x dotted quarter, but this also forces 8ths in a half-measure to be beamed even when separated by an 8th rest. Or we can select 6 x 8th note but then we don't get any of the 8th notes beamed, even if we want them to be. So the best I can suggest is to select whichever meter is going to help more of the time and correct what's needed by hand each time (it's only a single key stroke to break those beams over the 8th rest). The 3/8 was just one example. In most cases, for the music I do, I don't want any rests at all under beams, and I find it strange that this doesn't seem to be a beaming option. Couldn't a plug-in check this and remove all the beams over rests? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
{Spam} Re: [Finale] beaming question
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
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 that this is a document-wide option, and you have to rebeam existing music to get existing beams to break. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 prevent Finale from beaming across all 4 eight note beats when writing two eight notes, an eight note rest, then an eight note. I'm sure it's something in the time signature set up, but what? I'm in 4/4. I do remember how to split the beam with the slash key. P.S. Has anyone purchased Bill Duncan's articulation fonts? They do look quite wonderful. Mike Greensill - 17 powermac - Finale 2006b www.mikegreensill.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BEAMing question
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 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 display two slashes per bar instead of four when Slash Notation staff style is applied. To have already-entered music conform to the changed time signature, use Mass EditRebeamRebeam Music. Or you can avoid the whole faked-time-sig issue by entering all the music in 4/4, then selecting only the measures containing that figure, and use Mass EditRebeamRebeam to Time Signature and change it to 2/2. This will only change the beaming, not the time signature, so your slashes will still be OK. This is the method I would use, but you asked how to have it happen by default, which is trickier. Now for the parental lecture. You didn't ask, but it's the price of the advice. I don't suggest beaming a dotted figure like that. Four eighths, yes, but any variation from 4 simple eighths should be beamed to the quarter note, as Finale defaults to in 4/4. Enjoy, Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BEAMing question
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 display two slashes per bar instead of four when Slash Notation staff style is applied. If instead of doing this, you select the relevant passages with Mass Edit Tool and select Rebeam to Time Signature, and choose 2/2, you will get the beaming you require and the number of slashes in Slash Notation will be unaffected. Also, this way you can rebeam only some staves if that's what you need.John___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BEAMing question
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 default. The only problem with this is that Finale will only display two slashes per bar instead of four when Slash Notation staff style is applied. If instead of doing this, you select the relevant passages with Mass Edit Tool and select Rebeam to Time Signature, and choose 2/2, you will get the beaming you require and the number of slashes in Slash Notation will be unaffected. Also, this way you can rebeam only some staves if that's what you need. Umm, yes I said that at the end of my answer, just before the now see here, young man lecture. Glad to see someone else agrees with me that doing it afterwards is better than having it happen by default (assuming one WANTS beaming in that way, that is!) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 notation, a slur often denotes a portamento--but no exact transcription can be (or ought to be) made because exactly when such a portamento is appropriate is very much a matter of individual interpretation. To transcribe such a piece into modern notation, you'd have to find some way of differentiating editorial slurs from the original slurs, and doing so in a way that neither compelled the use of portamento for the latter, nor discouraged it. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 or phrasing--in which case I don't discard them. Other times, it seems to be done merely to save space, in which case I feel perfectly free to either keep it or lose it depending on my own editorial requirements and/or esthetic judgement. These same kinds of issues occur with a number of other notational elements such as clef changes, unorthodox stem directions, and cross-staff notation, all of which I will preserve or alter depending on both musical and typographic circumstances. In short: it all depends. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 of right now: a) piano or organ parts with beams between the staves, b) Exceptionally large leaps where the beams would be positioned very awquardly far away from the staves, c) polyphonic (violin-) parts on single stave where the voice leading needs to be preserved d) very rarely to preserve the beauty of an original print. None of these cases except for a) has happened in the last year or so. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 clearly. To me, by removing them, you are removing one of the clues to contour that could be helpful to a reader of the music. Also, by removing them for wide leaps, you often have to introduce a beam break or you'll end up with horridly ugly beaming (a steap angle or an extremely long stem for at least one of the notes). By your line of reasoning, I'd think we should remove convert the conventional appaggiatura notation into 4 16th notes. You don't do *that*, so where are you drawing the line on what is meaningful about the original notation and what is not? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 reader of the music. I actually find them much harder to read, especially in examples like the one you showed (Mozart). Very awquard, bad looking and not helpful to me as a sightreader. Agreed, it's partly because I am simply not expecting them in a modern edition. But it is also largely due to the fact that modern notation looks wrong like that. We are used to certain beam angles and placement which is simply not possible like this. Also, by removing them for wide leaps, you often have to introduce a beam break or you'll end up with horridly ugly beaming (a steap angle or an extremely long stem for at least one of the notes). Well, I already said that I might use such beams under exceptional circumstances, including exceptionally wide leaps. The Mozart example certainly isn't such an exceptionally wide leap. And I don't think it is the actual interval either, it is the question of whether the beam would end up too far away from the staff. That would require leaps from notes on several ledger lines above and below the staff. Which is pretty exceptional. I have never needed to break a beam because of not using reversed beaming, and I think that's simply a silly assumption. By your line of reasoning, I'd think we should remove convert the conventional appaggiatura notation into 4 16th notes. You don't do *that*, so where are you drawing the line on what is meaningful about the original notation and what is not? By your line of reasoning you have no choice but to use old lead engraving with stencils, duplicating every aspect of the original. Actually, the only accurate way of doing it is by means of Facsimiles. Seriously, I don't think appogiatura notation compares in the least with reversed beaming. On the other hand I have got the flu and am too tired to start an argument about it. I draw the line pretty much exactly where every publisher of critical, complete and Urtext editions draws the line. That means no reversed beaming apart from exceptions. But there is no question that appogiatura notation should be maintained. BTW, a lot of people will disagree that the case you are describing as appogiatura notation would translate into 4 16th notes. I am not necessarily one of them, but I do know that there is an example in CPE Bach where he clearly says the appogiatura needs to be a short one. It's a pretty complex problem. I have yet to see any mention of reversed beaming in any text books of the period, let alone an indication of any musical consequences. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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? Most of the early music I edit comes from printings in movable type, so there are no beams to preserve. But when the sources are either manuscripts or engraved editions, I do preserve the beaming breaks as a rule, but not necessarily the reversed beams (especially when the clefs aren't the same). Dennis 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 across those bar lines) but putting the music in score, reducing note values to make it look as I want it to sound, and beaming across 8ths and 16ths rather than using the archaic separate flags. My singers are used to it, and read it just fine. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 the beaming breaks and reversed beams? Beaming breaks yes, reversed beams no, with exceptions. I'd have to agree with this. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 across those bar lines) but putting the music in score, reducing note values to make it look as I want it to sound, and beaming across 8ths and 16ths rather than using the archaic separate flags. My singers are used to it, and read it just fine. To clarify: I was not asking about vocal music. I use modern beaming in vocal music, as well, because it's just much easier for singers to read. This is most easily demonstrated by asking a singer to sightread from some beautifully-engraved early 18th-century French edition. You'll find that the singers *can't* read the music, even though there's nothing at all unclear about the note shapes (as there might be in MS). So, yes, I do the same for vocal music, since I don't feel the non-beaming conveys anything useful that is not quite clear from word continuation symbols along with judiciously-placed slurs. Charpentier's MS is tough in the other direction. For melismas, he beams everything under a single syllable then connects that which can't be beamed together (such as 8 16ths and a quarter) with a single slur. This is so different from modern convention (i.e., using beams to accomplish exactly what we'd use slurs for) that I don't even try to replicate it. But in instrumental music, beaming breaks and reversed stems seem to me to suggest information about articulation, accentuation, phrasing and bowing. And I leave them as is (even when clefs are changed, on which point I differ with Dennis, though there are cases where I will remove the reversed stem if it obviously cannot convey any such additional information) even if it violates modern engraving conventions (which I basically don't give a rat's ass about) and even it if looks a little unusual. The potential informational value is more important to me than uniformity of appearance, and I can hardly think of circumstances where it makes the music harder to sightread. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 worth preserving? No. Do you also try to preserve the beaming breaks and reversed beams? Beaming breaks yes, reversed beams no, with exceptions. 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? I've played from original notation and, despite the fact that it's using notational standards completely different from our own, reversed beams are *not* one of the areas where those old conventions are harder to read (unlike the lack of vertical alignment, or the placing of whole notes in the center of measures, for instance). And it seems to me that reversed beams (and clef changes) often denote things like change of register, which is also often a change of voice within an implied polyphonic texture. Of course, in older notation, especially in MS, the problems of reversed beaming were fixed by fudging the beams, curving them in MS (to give that incredibly beautiful flowing look that you see in Bach's MS, for instance) or by tightening the space between the beams in engraved music. We don't have either of those alternatives available to us in modern computer notation (though I guess it's possible to tweak the beam spacing, though I've never mucked around with that), and, as in the example I gave, it sometimes looks bad and/or is hard to read. But in the repertories I work with often (late 18th-/early 19th- century keyboard chamber music, early 18th-century French vocal music, 17th-and 18th-century German vocal and viol music), cases where the reversed beams are hard to read or look really bad are actually quite rare. And there are plenty of cases where it looks *much* better than the modern alternative, such as large leaps constituting a change of register of well over an octave. Most of those will be better accomplished in modern beaming by breaking the beam, but I think it's better to make *no* changes in the original notation, rather than making two to represent the same thing. Of course, my goals in engraving are not the same as Andrew's are -- he's a publisher, I'm an editor, and if I were publishing my editions I'd probably take out the reversed beams that looked bad (though I'd note it in the critical notes). I strongly believe that beaming is an area with a lot of information in it that most people tend to ignore when engraving, even though performing musicians get all kinds of subtle cues from it when playing. I covet every tidbit of that subtle information and want it to get into the performance, so I'm not about to bleach it out of my edition without careful consideration. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 something. They often do. They often don't. I have seen a lot of 18th century sources, both ms and print. I honestly do not believe that reversed beams have any meaning at all. They are simply an aesthetic difference. In looks, not in the music. The Mozart example you showed is a good example why reversed beaming does not work in modern editions. I actually find your example very badly readable, and it looks completely unacceptable to me in a modern edition context. 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. YMMV Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 (beam below). Should this beam be horizontal, or slanted (down, obviously)? I can't really find a similar case in Ross. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 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 (beam below). Should this beam be horizontal, or slanted (down, obviously)? I can't really find a similar case in Ross. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 me, any edits requiring significant manual edits effort beyond the (presumed) samples of your work you provided up front would cost plenty mucho extra. In this way, your own samples would become the rulebook for your work (or rather, for your base rate). Finale will slant the beam if you change your beam style to Based on End Points. And PB will edit them and (I think) leave them slanted. Unfortunately, Finale's rounding errors for metrics are more pronounced with Based on End Points beaming style. I often find 1- or 2-EVPU glitches in the PB-edited beams. Even worse, every beam in the file would be affected. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 Clinton Roemer, the Art of Hand Copying, his chapter on beams is quite extensive and he deals with this. According to him, you slant a beam only if no note is lower than the last nor higher than the first, even if the contour is changing within the group, but not if there are recurring pitches (like an Alberti, which he would write flat). Since this is NOT your case, he would insist on a flat beam. 2nd Edition, pg 65, second last line third example, he has your exact example (a step up and in retrograde, but there it is!) with a flat beam. Kurt Stone (1st edition, pg 11) has less detail, but is more flexible on the subject. He says that beams on note groups with an irregular contour can be flat OR slanted. He has an example slanted that Roemer would have definitely written flat. I have a copy of Norton Manual of Music Manuscript, George Heusenstamm, lying around in the piles somewhere so I can't cite a page, but I remember that he definitely accepts more slanting than anyone else. He slants according to the starting and ending notes, and so would definitely slant your example. You didn't ask MY opinion, but I would tend to default to flat beams for your example, more along the lines of Roemer. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 manual edits effort beyond the (presumed) samples of your work you provided up front would cost plenty mucho extra. In this way, your own samples would become the rulebook for your work (or rather, for your base rate). The situation is a little more complicated, as the publisher is not actually my customer at all. I won't bore you with the details, but yes, everything will have to be paid for. Actually, there are occasionally situations where one has to edit beams manually, eg chromatic scales in certain situations. In this particular case I just want to make sure that I am not actually wrong in what I originally had. My customer doesn't actually have a clue, and I want to make sure that he won't argue with me on the assumption that the publisher has more authority than I. Otherwise he might argue about the extra costs. Finale will slant the beam if you change your beam style to Based on End Points. And PB will edit them and (I think) leave them slanted. Unfortunately, Finale's rounding errors for metrics are more pronounced with Based on End Points beaming style. I often find 1- or 2-EVPU glitches in the PB-edited beams. Based on End Points is definitely not what I want for the rest of the volume. That brings up another point: Does anyone of the big publishers actually use different basic rules than Based on Extreme Note, ie Standard Note? I don't mean exceptions, there will always be some, but the general rule? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 staff followed by G E G, all *below* the staff, then I would use a beam that runs below the B and above all the others. On the other hand, if G E G are all in the staff (i.e., g' e' g') then I don't understand the fuss at all. What's wrong with Finale's (slanted) default? For that matter, what's wrong with horizontal? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 looking best and maintaining the visual image matching the auditory one -- that group of notes does not sound like a descending passage, regardless of the fact that the final e is lower than the initial b. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 this literally, that is, B above the staff followed by G E G, all *below* the staff, then I would use a beam that runs below the B and above all the others. On the other hand, if G E G are all in the staff (i.e., g' e' g') then I don't understand the fuss at all. What's wrong with Finale's (slanted) default? For that matter, what's wrong with horizontal? Sorry, I was very inaccurate: b, g, e,g (all in the same octave). Finale's default (Based on Extreme Note) is flat. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 the passage an overall descending one, and the flat beam still seemed more a pro pos. That's just my personal reaction. Chuck On Nov 5, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 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 this literally, that is, B above the staff followed by G E G, all *below* the staff, then I would use a beam that runs below the B and above all the others. On the other hand, if G E G are all in the staff (i.e., g' e' g') then I don't understand the fuss at all. What's wrong with Finale's (slanted) default? For that matter, what's wrong with horizontal? Sorry, I was very inaccurate: b, g, e,g (all in the same octave). Finale's default (Based on Extreme Note) is flat. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale 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
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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)? In transcribing 18th-century sources I religiously maintain beam breaks and reversed beams (the |\| kind of beam), because I think they indicate subtle things about phrasing (though not always). But standards for beam angle are completely different in modern notation than in the old, and so I never even thought to replicate any of that. 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? Maintaining the reversed beams makes for some bad engraving, in some cases. Here's an example: http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581Arr_019.png That looks terrible in modern engraving, though it looks fine in the original. And, interestingly, an 1811 reprint of the same piece that follows the 1802 first edition very closely does *not* use the reversed beam, but simply breaks it between the first two 32nd notes. I'm not sure there's any utility in my slavish devotion to following the original, and if I were preparing the edition for publication I'd probably take out the reversed beams in this passage, because the 32nd-note beams make it so unwieldy. I'd probably retain it everywhere that it doesn't cause vertical spacing issues. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 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. Well, my approach can't be all that wrong, I guess. I am quite happy to accept that publishers like to have more slanted beams (like the particular publisher in question). I don#t like the look, but since many publishers prefer this I am happy to go with it. I am not so happy about slanting beams which I really think should be flat. But then, the publisher rules, if he pays. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 breaks yes, reversed beams no, with exceptions. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 instrument. Quite often, this change happens after the first of four 8th notes. I'm wondering if it would be better to leave the four notes beamed together, or to break the beam after the first note at the clef change (where the doubled instrument changes). I'd be happy to have your opinions. Dear Dennis, IMHO, If I were playing from a single-line continuo part with figures, I think I would prefer to keep the 4 notes beamed together. In addition, unless it involved many ledger lines, I would prefer most of the part to appear in the bass clef. If you plan to include a written-out realization of the continuo part, you might possibly want to put the higher notes up into the treble clef (right-hand part). Either a flag and three eighths beamed or 4 eighths beamed would be OK by me. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Beaming question
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 instrument to a bass instrument. Quite often, this change happens after the first of four 8th notes. I'm wondering if it would be better to leave the four notes beamed together, or to break the beam after the first note at the clef change (where the doubled instrument changes). I'd be happy to have your opinions. Break the beam. Two reasons: 1. it will be easier to read 2. the broken beam will suggest phrasing that is most likely going to be highly appropriate for a change of register of that extent. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
