Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: autobeam issue in split measures (Read 13481 times) previous topic - next topic

autobeam issue in split measures

if there is a measure that is split by a bar line (such as a open master repeat) and any beamed notes are after the split and before the start of the next measure, NWC2 does not autobeam the beamed notes. this happens with 8th, 16th, 32nd, 64th (i didn't check it beyond that). it also doesn't autobeam beamed pickup notes unless they are preceded by enough rests to constitute a full measure in accordance with the time signature.
AIM me at drolar1 (home) or drolar2 (work)

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #1 –
If a measure doesn't agree with the time signature, how should NWC go about automatically beaming it?

You can put hidden time signatures in to tell NWC how you want things automatically beamed. This is as it should be, I think.
Registered user since 1996

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #2 –
NWC does not support beaming over bar lines, if this is what you are wanting.

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #3 –
i have since learned that there were some problems with the satb template. it seems that's where the problem was. it only does it in my template which is based off an older template. sorry. should have thought about that before.
AIM me at drolar1 (home) or drolar2 (work)

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #5 –
Ditto.

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #6 –
Add my ditto to Rob's. Beaming over barlines can be done with layers, of course, but it would be so nice if we could just do it....

Bill

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #7 –
i've never seen beaming over a bar line. what is that used for?
AIM me at drolar1 (home) or drolar2 (work)

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #8 –
I've seen the occasional split bar in real life, but not often.  Usually seems to be in older styles of printing. 

I would think that putting a bar line in the middle of a bunch of notes that are grouped by a beam would create a risk that the bar line wouldn't be seen until it's too late.  That would be a problem if the bar line is question is a repeat sign.

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #9 –
Quote from: drolar –
i've never seen beaming over a bar line. what is that used for?
A voice can change its apparent meter without changing the Time Signature. Not every voice in a piece has the same meter. The purpose of beams is to group shorter notes into beats (and pulses). Sometimes these cross barlines. Examples can be found in every genre.

For wind and other mono-voice instruments, the beats can be shown by slurs, with another slur indicating the actual phase. Such "double slurring" doesn't work well for piano music. It is hard to read and sometimes misleading.

It is arbitrary to forbid beams at barlines.

Edit: more thoughts <here>.
Registered user since 1996

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #10 –
interesting. thanks to those who replied. i really didn't understand what purpose it served.  i would love to see an example in printed music.
AIM me at drolar1 (home) or drolar2 (work)

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
Here's a bit from an Anton Reicha mass.

thanks, Rick!  i'm always eager to learn about new things (to me) musical!
AIM me at drolar1 (home) or drolar2 (work)

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #13 –
Rick, I'm curious. 

The bottom two lines look as if they might be right and left hand piano parts (I don't know what archi means).

The bass part has both stem up and stem down notes.  I assumed stem directions would normally be used to differentiate right and left hand parts, but the right hand is busy in the treble clef. 

Also the beams across the bars have two note chords, stem up on the last 8th note but mixed stems on beat 1 of the first chord of the next bar.  I don't know why.

Finally, it seems clear the right hand part should have the bars subdivided into two (according to the beams) but I don't know if you want the left hand part to be played in three or two.  We're doing a lot of stuff at band that uses hemiolas, and I don't know if that's what you're trying to convey.  If not, the beaming might simply indicate a lot of "da-dum" licks, landing on the beat each time.  It would be nice if you could attach a sound clip of the midi file, demonstrating the interpetation you want used.


Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #14 –
Quote from: David Palmquist –
The bottom two lines look as if they might be right and left hand piano parts (I don't know what archi means).
I don't know what archi means either. The bottom 2 staves are for piano.

Quote from: David Palmquist –
The bass part has both stem up and stem down notes.  I assumed stem directions would normally be used to differentiate right and left hand parts, but the right hand is busy in the treble clef. 
Stem directions normally indicate voices. Which hand to use is generally left to the performer.

Quote from: David Palmquist –
Also the beams across the bars have two note chords, stem up on the last 8th note but mixed stems on beat 1 of the first chord of the next bar.  I don't know why.
Finally, it seems clear the right hand part should have the bars subdivided into two (according to the beams) but I don't know if you want the left hand part to be played in three or two.  We're doing a lot of stuff at band that uses hemiolas, and I don't know if that's what you're trying to convey.  If not, the beaming might simply indicate a lot of "da-dum" licks, landing on the beat each time. 
I see this as a melody and bass line in 2 with an interior melody that is offset by 2/3rds of a beat.

Quote from: David Palmquist –
It would be nice if you could attach a sound clip of the midi file, demonstrating the interpetation you want used.
It's the interpetation Reicha (or his editor) wants used, not mine. I just try to keep my foot off the damper pedal as much as I can and play legato where there are slurs. ;)
Registered user since 1996

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #15 –
Quote
I don't know what archi means either.

By using google translation from Italian to English, it appears that the term "per archi" means "for strings", and "per archi" using babelfish translates as "for it arches".  So my guess would be that it's the piano rendition of the string accompaniment.

Just a guess, since I don't speak a word of Italian, but it seems to make sense.  I looked up other works with the term in it.  For example, "Concerto in sol minore, per violino, archi, e cembalo" translated to "Concerto in G minor for violin, strings and harpsichord".

John

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #16 –
Quote
Quote
I don't know what archi means either.
my guess would be that it's the piano rendition of the string accompaniment.
Yes, Archi means Strings.
I haven't seen that type of beaming in a while.  Usually I'll see it when
Quote
a voice changes its apparent meter without changing the Time Signature.


Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #17 –
Yes, right. Musically speaking, archi = strings.
Literally: arco = bow, so "archi" means the whole family of bowed instruments.

I don't know if violas (vihuela, viola da gamba, etc.) are actually considered strings... pardon, archi.

Getting back to the score, if you consider it for a bunch of strings it's not a problem to understand the multiple melodic (and also polyphonic) lines.
Things become awkward only if you try to play them on a keyboard with just two hands!
It's ok on the organ with pedalboard.

Maurizio

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #18 –
There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking a piano reduction of a string score will put 1st and 2nd fiddles in the RH and viola and cello (and bass if present) in the LH. If the arranger is detail-oriented, he/she may indicate the original instrumentation via the stems: up for 1st fiddles, down for 2nds, up for viola, down for cello and bass. This can help when attempting to determine how to bring out the individual voices....if you're a good enough pianist to bring out individual voices....(not I, at least not most of the time).

The beams across barlines serve a similar purpose to the stem directions. In this case, they help indicate note groupings and accents. Beaming should never be done by rote: it's there to help the performer read and interpret the score. Same with stem directions.

Just my $.02 worth -

Bill

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #19 –
Beaming across barlines is quite common in modern transcriptions of late mediaeval and renaissance music, when composers were much more flexible about rhythm than is usually the case nowadays, and modern players often have difficulty reading bars of irregular length. NWC seems not to have a 'don't count me - just print me' barline; perhaps I should put it on the wishlist.

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #20 –
Quote from: adge
NWC seems not to have a 'don't count me - just print me' barline; perhaps I should put it on the wishlist.
Actually, in NWC2, there's a checkbox in the barline properties dialogue to "exclude from bar count." Works great.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #21 –
i often use the "exclude from bar count" when a repeat splits a measure. i also use it in conjunction with setting the barline's visibility to "never" to transcribe early music that has no bar lines. for me, they are two very useful features.
AIM me at drolar1 (home) or drolar2 (work)
 

Re: autobeam issue in split measures

Reply #22 –
Thanks for that, Bill; I've only just got level 2 and didn't when this topic was live

Sorry to be so late acknowledging - ill health, unfortunately.

Alan