Beams over rests

New post

Anders Hedelin Edited January 28, 2017 16:09 Planned

When I write the following rhythm with Finale's presets for beams I get this result:
ex. a

This is rather unsatisfactory because the broken 16th beams make it visually messy, the first of the 32nd beam stubs in each group are turned the wrong way, and the rests are too high, colliding with the 8th beams.

If I change the beam settings (in doc opt) checking "extend secondary beams over rests", this is the result:
ex. b

Now the 32nd beams are turned in the right direction but too long and I can't figure out how to shorten them.

This is the result I would have wanted from the start, also the one you find in, I think all, older editions (Beethoven's 4th symph., sec mov.):
ex. c

To acheive this I had to change the notation in ex. a by the following steps: 1. extend the 16th beams, 2. switch the first 32nd beam stub in the right direction, 3. lower the rests by two steps, 4. lift the beams app. one step, 5. copy the first group twice. This is absurdly circumstantial.

So, I have to ask: am I missing something obvious?
If not, my suggestion is that Finale would reconsider the beam presets. I'm not sure when, if ever, you would need the rather strange notation in ex. a.

(By the way, I did NOT make an engraving of Beethoven's fourth (!) but of a 'Musical comment' on the same by a Swedish composer. He also made extensive use of this motive which cost me quite a few hours of work. Also, because measure widths were different in the parts, I had to readjust practically every measure containing this motive there as well!)

Finale 2.0 - 25.2
Windows 7, Mac OS 10.8

19 comments

Date Votes

Official comment

MM_MICHAEL JOHNSON February 08, 2017 22:18

Hi All:

I apology for my delay in chiming in on the topic. This is an interesting thread and a wonderful discussion. Thank you all for your thoughts, examples, references, and recommendations. I will break this into 3 issues/requests.

Editing of secondary beams. It should be easier and not require a Lua plug-in. This is documented as FIN-4359 in database of issues. High on my list to address.
Enhancements to handling of beamed groups with rests present. This is the root of the conversation. I've opened FIN-4516. Finale needs more granularity once 1/32 and shorter durations are involved. It has been known for too long and there are a plethora of historical examples (Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc.) where Finale fails to provide desired results quickly and easily. Unfortunately, there is work that is more pressing ahead of this story, but I do want to provide the control to the high-end user sooner rather than later.
Changes to default file settings. Anders posed this question in his initial post. I want to do more research, talk to others in the office, look at the competition, and understand the ramifications before making such a change. It seems the right thing to do, but I could be missing something.

I will conclude with John's observation that Finale has shaped the look of printed music in the past 30 years. Yes, there is no doubt that as much as the printing press shaped engraving rules, e.g. bleeding ink in beam wedges, Finale and other notation software has shaped rules adopted by the community. Perhaps Finale's proliferation garnered a strong impact. I will let others draw a conclusion. It is the double-edge sword of technology. I'm incredibly proud of the fact that music can be presented to performers quicker and with greater clarity than ever before. I'm also highly motivated that there is much yet to be done. This thread is a microcosm of that experience.

Again, thank you for your dedication to improving Finale and music notation.

Cheers,
Michael Johnson
VP, Professional Notation
MakeMusic

JOHN RUGGERO Edited January 29, 2017 12:51

This annoying behavior has been discussed at the old MM Forum, where it was pointed out that Sibelius does the correct beaming by default. I seem to recall a trick, which now escapes me, to get it to work, but why does one need to know a trick to do something so basic?

What is strange is that Finale does A correctly, but not B; C correctly, but not D:

Finale recognizes rhythm A as a unit and preserves this when it links several together as at C. But it doesn't seem to recognize rhythm B as a unit, because when it puts two together as at D the stub runs the wrong way.

More breaking of secondary beams over rests, as at B etc. is now the fashion. (See Elaine Gould Behind Bars page 165) I agree with you and Beethoven that this is "unsatisfactory", "visually messy" and should not be Finale's default behavior.

Because of differences of opinion on this issue, there need to be more settings for secondary beaming styles, and one needs to be able to set them on an individual as well as global basis without cumbersome workarounds.

ROBERT PATTERSON Edited January 30, 2017 02:10

The trick is to hide the rest in V1 and enter it in V2. It works fine, but it is annoying on the face of it, and it is doubly annoying because Finale's copy function makes a mess of it if you try to copy it. So you have to enter every single one manually.

EDIT: My bad. This trick only works in this special case:

Anders Hedelin Posted January 31, 2017 16:18

I looked up Elaine Gould's examples (p. 165), and it seems to me that it's a question of complexity when to use broken secondary beams or not. When the rhythms are more irregular, as in her second example, breaking the beams look quite adequate. When more regular, as in the first example, the beams are (naturally) unbroken.

The 'Beethoven' example in my first post is an articulated dotted rhythm, repeated regularly. Nothing more. And I really don't see why the notation should suggest anything more 'advanced' than that, which I think Finale's version does. Why overcomplicate things?

And if it should have become 'more fashionable' to notate rythms this simple in the muddy and 'pseudo-modern' way with broken secondary beams, I wonder if Finale's presets aren't very much to blame for that.

JOHN RUGGERO Posted January 31, 2017 23:45

I agree completely, Anders. Secondary beams should only be broken for very specific reasons: where they clarify a complex rhythm or express something special that the composer has in mind. It should not be done as a matter of course and for that reason should not be Finale's default.

You might be interested in the discussion of the Gould examples at http://notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=272&start=10

Anders Hedelin Posted February 01, 2017 16:58

Please Michael, give us your thoughts about this!

I don't think it far-fetched or overly suspicious to beleive that a Finale default could influence the way engravers look upon things because they get used to it. In this case, unnecessarily breaking secondary beams, I'm pretty sure Finales defaults has influenced the consensus about what is 'normal' in music engraving.

JOHN RUGGERO Posted February 01, 2017 17:12

Anders, I wrote concerning the disappearance of the standard multi-measure rest for double staffed instruments as a result of Finale's inability to implement these at: http://notat.io/viewtopic.php?t=76

So I agree with you in principle, but think that excessive secondary beam breaking antedates Finale. I was doing this in hand copying in the 1970's.

Anders Hedelin Posted February 01, 2017 17:33

Thanks for your reply and enlightenment, John! I was not aware of this tendency in the 1970's - even if I could have been (I was old enough then). Mysterious! And, sorry, Michael and Finale if I blamed you for something that you were not guilty of! Still, I think it would be nice if you could choose the good old, pre 70's, notation as an alternative.

Anders Hedelin Edited February 01, 2017 18:38

John, I'm not sure that I understood the reasoning in the thread about MMRs. All the same, I too had a problem with MMRs in harp parts. Possibly this could be a topic for a new (renewed) thread?

JOHN RUGGERO Posted February 01, 2017 20:54

I might make it a feature request at some point, Anders. but I think the topic was well exhausted at notat.io. At least I was! And, as mentioned on the thread, there is now a Lua plug-in that does the job, so all is well.

It will be interesting to hear what MM says about your original post.

Anders Hedelin Edited February 09, 2017 09:36

Thanks Michael, for your extensive and encouraging reply! I really appreciated your comment on the historical perspective because it's something that isn't focused on every day on this forum, quite understandably. I also appreciate that changing the defaults may need some deep thought, and would gladly wait (a bit) for something that is both historically and practically intelligent.

Anders Hedelin

MM_MICHAEL JOHNSON Posted February 10, 2017 17:33

Thank you Anders. I am grateful for the Finale user base and the insightful discussions on this forum. My goal is to make small incremental changes that are always forward progress. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Cheers,

Michael Johnson

VP, Professional Notation

MakeMusic

JOHN RUGGERO Edited August 03, 2017 16:31

Dorico has exactly the same issue as Finale in beaning over rests in this situation. They are going to try to fix it in their next major update.

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=121297

Now the question is: who will get there first, Finale or Dorico?

Anders Hedelin Edited August 07, 2017 18:24

I posted an attempt at prioritizing different feature requests in which I had been engaged, including this one. I had second thoughts about that and deleted the post, hoping that MM can make the needed prioritizations.

George Mohammed Edited August 05, 2017 00:36

Initial Post:

[If I understand correctly, the Finale default settings for beams over rests is that 8th rests and smaller all "break" through to the 16th, leaving only the 8th beam over the rest.

"Extend Secondary Beams Over Rests" works so that beams extend over rests of the same duration. (How this seems to work is that the beams extend from the joining stems and meet halfway, thus, joining the beam group, and which is why the 32nd beam extends over the rest in the initial example.)

And so, the default settings need to be changed so that beams break only for rests of the same duration.]

EDITED:

Ok, a little late to the party but I think I got the rule now.

In traditional engravings, Secondary Beams are not broken for rests.

There shouldn't be a difference in beaming between, for example, a dotted 16th-32nd note pair and a 16th-32nd rest-32nd note group.

The "Extend Primary/Secondary Beams Over Rests" option can't be used for this as this is more intended for a "modern" style notation and not the traditional style.

The desired result does take quite a bit of work to do in Finale, especially if working on large projects. Copying beam adjustments doesn't cut it as the length of one instance may not work in another because the music spacing may be different. The current functionality necessitates manually adjusting every instance to get the desired look.

Making the engraving standard the default is definitely a step in the right direction as it is cleaner and easier to read (like everyone has mentioned).

George Mohammed Edited August 05, 2017 00:53

Now that I've regurgitated the topic of the OP, I'd like to discuss a related topic: Secondary Beam Breaks with Triples/Tuplets and Rests. It gets very grey and I don't think Finale handles this "properly" either.

Example 1:

A: Is the Finale Default with the Primary Beam (PB) broken.

B: Is what this would look like if MM were to implement the Standard Engraving Rule for Secondary Beams (SB) over rests. To my eye, this looks wrong.

C: Is the Finale Default with the PB. I found this beaming in a Dover Edition of Debussy's "Complete Preludes: Books I & II" (Book 2, #5. "Bruyeres," m. 36 and elsewhere). This looks right to me, however, I think the principle for the break is different than why it is broken in Finale. Finale breaks the SB because of the 16th-rest but it's clear in the Debussy-Dover example that the SB is broken to make the Triplet group clearly defined. So, should there be options for breaking SB for Triplet/Tuplet groups?

Here are a few more Examples:

Example 2:

Example 3:

Example 4:

Thoughts??

I didn't find anything explicit about this in the Ted Ross or Gardner Read books.

(Also, beaming over barlines should be made possible. This is easy to do in MuseScore .... and MuseScore is free.)

JOHN RUGGERO Edited August 05, 2017 14:49

That is an excellent analysis of the situation, George. I think that all these versions should be easily accomplished in Finale, for obvious reasons. However, the ones that you prefer, and I do too, because they are easier to read and therefore more prevalent in the literature, should be the defaults.

Anders Hedelin Posted August 07, 2017 18:46

I totally agree with you on beaming and tuplets, George. This also should be the default behaviour of any notation software. It's pure logic, and has little to do with personal preferences.

MM_MICHAEL JOHNSON Posted August 16, 2017 18:53

Duly noted George. Thank you for sharing all these examples and references.

Cheers,

Michael Johnson

VP, Professional Notation

MakeMusic

Please sign in to leave a comment.