Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: direction of beams (not stems) (Read 23652 times) previous topic - next topic

direction of beams (not stems)

I recently purchased NWC to create scale patterns and exercises for my students, and ran into a glitch with the beaming. I created a pattern of dotted 8th/16th/dotted 8th/16th, then used the auto beaming to connect the four notes. That worked fine, but when I tried to reverse the pattern for the next exercise (16th/dotted 8th/16th/dotted 8th), I couldn't make it beam correctly. The beam on the second sixteenth turns around to face the eighth that precedes it, rather than the eighth that follows it. It is drawing the figure as if the first three notes are a syncopated rhythm, which is not so. How can I fix this?

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #1 –
G'day Clare,
I just tried to replicate your problem...

I can only get what you describe if I force the first [abbr=16th]semiquaver[/abbr] off the beat.  I used a dotted [abbr=8th]quaver[/abbr] rest before it.

Normally the beaming is set up so that beamed notes make a grouping that starts on the beat.  As you don't normally get a beam starting from the "and", NWC does not to do this automatically.

You can force this if you highlight the notes you want beamed and then click the beam button on the tool bar or you could press <Ctrl-b>.

Also, if you have an existing beamed group, the automatic beam will NOT break it.  Even when the beam is not "conventional".  So if you copied a beamed group and adjusted the note pattern without breaking the beam then it will not re-beam correctly.

Hopefully I've given you a clue...
Lawrie
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #2 –
I'm sorry, I don't at all understand what you just said, or perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly.  I don't have a problem getting the four notes to beam together; it's just that the second beam of the third note (16th note) faces the second note (dotted eighth note), when it should face the fourth note (dotted eighth) instead to be correct.

If I break the four notes into two groups of two, the beams face the proper direction. But, of course, it is standard notation that all four should be beamed together, and as soon as I do that, the beam of the third note reverses direction.  I've tried to trick it every way I could think of, but nothing worked.

This is an extremely common rhythmic pattern for violin -- the "Scotch snap" -- and I do not want to present it this way to my students since it is incorrect notation. Does that help? The only solution I've been able to come up with is to rewrite everything into 8th/dotted quarter values, but changing my composition because my software can't notate it properly is not my idea of a very good solution.  Any ideas?

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #3 –
What Clare describes is what happens – don't know what you're doing differently Lawrie.

There's a similar bug in Clare's first example but with rests instead of dots (i.e. quaver, semiquaver rest, semiquaver etc)

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #4 –
It looks as if the beam is placed where there is the most room for it. I agree that it should be facing right, even though until now I never noticed anything wrong about it.

It is a good point, and a pity it is that the beam direction cannot be set for individual notes.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #5 –
Clare,
Oops, I read it but I didn't comprehend it, brain must need another shot of caffeine - my apologies, I see the problem now.

Peter,
Yes, I see what you mean.

Rob,
Unless there is a valid reason for these patterns to be [abbr=I haven't been able to identify one]possible[/abbr] I suggest a bug report should be made rather than another control in note properties.

Lawrie
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #6 –
Well, um, yes, since it has been like this for so long, it looked as if there is an earthly reason to have the beam point to the left. It might save a few dots.
You are right: if the direction should always be right, it is a bug, and it should report to the rack.

(btw, I prefer ginger snaps)

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #7 –
Well, I'm glad to know I'm not doing something wrong to make this happen, but by calling it a "bug" are you saying there's no way to fix this? Ugh. Will there be a patch or update or something for it? I'm creating my own book for students, and need to know if I should just rewrite everything or wait for a fix if it will be soon.

Sorry, I just purchased the program a week ago, so I haven't really looked into the updates/fixes aspect of it yet. Thanks a bunch for the speedy answers -- even if I don't like them ;-) -- and further input regarding this "bug" of which you speak is appreciated.

BTW - regarding the (in my case) erroneously inward-facing second beam: Yes, there is a valid circumstance for it: syncopations. In a string of syncopations it's common to omit the inner tie and simply allow the figure to be written 16th-8th-16th, in which case NWC's inward beam is correct. Unless the program is capable of determining syncopation vs. simply dotted or other usage, a beam flippage button might be necessary. Besides, "beam flippage button" is catchy, no?

Aside from this glitch, I've been very pleased with NWC so far. It's very intuitive and user-friendly. I've got one or two other questions/requests, but I'll scope the search first and then post separate questions if they're not already answered.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #8 –
If this is something you are printing for your students to use, perhaps you could beam two notes at a time, print the document, and then use a black pen or marker to beam together the two groups of two.  A bit tedious, of course, but it might produce (or approximate) the desired appearance.  (Please note that I am at work and without access to NWC right now, so I can't accurately assess how well this would work.)

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #9 –
I do recognize that my suggestion will work well (if at all) only if the intervals are small and in the same direction.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #10 –
Yes, that would work for many of them, but not, for example, the groups at the peak of a scale, in which the beam angle reverses from ascending to descending.  In order to have the 8th beam line up I'd have to join the four notes and let the beam bug have its way, then white out and fix the inner beam.

I will probably either do this or just leave them in groups of twos, although that's a bit rougher on the eyes and makes it easier for students to lose their place when they're in the leger-line violin stratosphere to begin with.

I just tried it another way, which is better: Unlike Finale's Notepad, NWC fortunately allows you to input completely inaccurate rhythms/meters/bars, so I can notate it as 16th-dotted 8th-EIGHTH-dotted 8th, and then add the second beam to make it a sixteenth.

Or maybe not, now that I think of it. I'm creating scale patterns in 1, 2, and 3 octaves for every key, major and minor. The program will transpose them for me, but I'd still have to make these hand corrections on every single version and key. I won't live with the backwards beam, but I may be forced to live with two-note groups or 8th/dotted quarters instead of the traditional 16th-snap scale pattern.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #11 –
Steve in FL's suggestion can also be done with layering - provided the four notes are the same pitch.  Group notes 1+2 and 3+4.  On the layered staff replace notes 2+3 with invisible rests, and group 1+4.  Make them muted.  Doesn't work at all when the four notes show varying motion.  If you're using NWC2, you could possible juggle the note stem lengths to get something workable.

There is another related bug.  Try semiquaver, quaver, [abbr=still a sixteenth, despite the abbreviation]semi[/abbr], dotted quaver, semi.  If you group them normally, you'd group 1+2+3 to get a standard syncopated beat, and group 4+5 to get a standard dotted-and-demi beat.  But if you group all five notes together, the third note has the beam in the wrong direction!

I suspect it's something in the coding that says "point the extra beam line towards the note with the dot".  This would definitely be quicker to execute than having to work out the correct rhythm (what was that last time signature?  where are we in the bar?)

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #12 –
NWC2? I don't think so. It says I have NWC 1.75 and that that's the latest version.  I'll have to go back to the home page to see what I'm missing.

I have no clue about layering, and I've already done quite a bit of battling to get extra space on the page to separate the scale patterns section from the arpeggio and thirds sections. But yes, the notes are all different pitches, so I believe you said your approach wouldn't work for my needs anyway.

Is there a Wish List section here somewhere?

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #14 –
When I say left, I do of course mean right!!  (Sorry!)

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #15 –
Thanks. I'll search for answers to my problems first, then post them in the wish list if it seems they're not yet possible.

I'm learning how to do the layering right now just so I can have slurs along with phrase marks. Confusing workaround, but at least it's possible.

I must say, though, the speedy answers on this active forum are a tremendous asset! Thanks to all.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #16 –
I've never seen consecutive iterations of the Scotch Snap, so I've never noticed this behaviour before...

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #17 –
Amazing that such a major bug should be uncovered 20 months after v1.75b is released.  I guess this is why we need teachers. To teach the basics, they need to understand them better than the rest of us.

NWC2 has the same behaviour and it cannot always be worked around even with layers, invisible notes and varied stem lengths.  IMO, this needs to be fixed before the release of the NWC2 beta.
Registered user since 1996

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #18 –
"I guess this is why we need teachers. To teach the basics, they need to understand them better than the rest of us."

...and pass that knowledge on to their students by refusing to use incorrect notation.  ;-)

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #19 –
I think it's getting a bit subjective here - the idea of "correct" and the teaching of it.  Maybe nothing's absolutely "correct" unless we all agree to use it.  Sure, the manual prescribed by the National Music Examinations Board of [insert your country here] might be a good start, but we don't all live in [country], and might have a different manual.

I've come to accept that the purpose of beaming is to help the player decipher the rhythm.  That's why we can have four beamed quavers (even in 4/4), but should break into pairs of beamed notes if notes 3+4 have a different rhythm from 1+2.  Like chords, arpeggios and even the written word, we read in general shapes, not mathematically, squiggle by squiggle.

Some patterns are common enough that they look odd if they're not always in the same format:  4 straight quavers [8-8-8-8], dotted-demi-dotted-demi [8.-16-8.-16], syncopated [16-8-16], etc.  But to help the player, infrequent patterns should be notated in their most readable form.  Earl Cholmondeley has is right - consecutive [16-8.-16-8.] is rather uncommon.  It's more likely to be broken into [16-8.] and another [16-8.], especially as the pitches are likely to be mid-high-low-mid.

But that doesn't mean that clare should have to put up with faulty notation just because it's rather uncommon.  (I'd suggest the most common place for [16-8.-16-8.] would be in teaching exercises!)

I think what I'm saying is that it's not really a major bug, if it has taken 20 months (and possibly more if it happened in earlier versions) to uncover, and that it has a very easy work-around (simply beam in groupings that most players are familiar with).  I'd prefer to see the [abbr=or "marvelous" if that's how your region spells it]marvellous[/abbr] people at NWC solve other problems first!  (We all know them - multi-bar rests, beaming across staves, beams with some stems up and some down, etc.)

Hint for those who are still reading:  After inserting a 4/4 time signature, I immediately insert an invisible cut-common time signature.  It make automatic beaming get it right much more often.  I beam pairs of notes as I enter them only when they must be beamed as a pair (and probably every Scotch Snap!).  Vary rarely I might prefer to insert an invisible 4/4 just before a short rhythmically-varied passage.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #20 –
Sorry, I didn't realize fixes were on an "either/or" basis. I was just trying to find out if I was doing something wrong or if there was a way I could fix it myself.

I agree that successive snaps are commonplace largely within the realm of fiddle tunes, Slavic violin music -- Slavic snaps? --especially Hungarian, and exercises. Writing out scale and bowing patterns, rhythms, and exercises, however, happens to be the only reason I purchased notation software in the first place.

Yes, I have resigned myself to using groupings of two rather than four, since none of the layering or other suggestions seemed to work.  But please respect the fact that I find this little glitch to be a much peskier "bug" than any of those other "more important" bugs you mentioned, which have no bearing on my usage.
 

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #21 –
clare: If you would post some of the "scale and bowing patterns, rhythms, and exercises" that are problematic, to the newsgroup, some of us might take a wack at them.

I'm with you on the gravity of this bug.  NoteWorthy doesn't purport to do everything, but what it does purport to do, it usually does accurately.
Registered user since 1996

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #22 –
I'd be happy to, as soon as I figure out how. I think I need the CD to sign up. It hasn't arrived at my door, so it must have been sent to my PO Box (which I haven't checked in at least a week). I'll post when I'm able to do so. Thanks for the offer to help.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #23 –
Yes, clare, you are right.  I was placing problems of my own importance above yours.  I apologise.

Rick G is also right in saying that NWC usually does thing accurately.

Based on previous bugs, I'd suggest that it won't be long before this one is fixed: NWC might not always have the time or resources to add missing features, but they're good at fixing incorrect features once they're discovered!

Once they've done that, I hope there's time for the problem - and yes it is a problem, because it's a standard part of music notation - of the missing multi-bar rests that so many people keep asking about!

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #24 –
This behavior is actually very difficult to change in NWC. At the moment, the best solution is to break the construct into two beamed groups.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #25 –
And it probably took several hours to find out just how hard it was to change.

I'll look in to a "workaround" for this. Look For "Scotch Snap" in the NWC2 Forum. (where I can post clips)
Registered user since 1996

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #26 –
The latest NWC2 preview (Preview 1y) includes a built-in work around. If appearance is all that matters, you can just add a hidden grace rest after the first dotted note. I will add a sample clip to https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5351.

Re: direction of beams (not stems)

Reply #27 –
And if playback matters too then just use a tied hidden grace note!

Sadly, it doesn't fix 8 R16 16 8 R16 16. The second note flag still points resolutely forwards :-(