NOTATIO

This came up recently at MM Forum: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=5&m=471407

The following excerpt is from the Brahms Symphony no. 4. Note that the repeated note indications follow the direction of the beams in opposition to the way Finale (and I think Sibelius) handles this situation.
I believe that this is the way I hand copied this with Arnstein and do prefer it.

I consulted the following scores and find the same:

1. Schumann 1st Symphony in both the Complete Works and the Philharmonia mini-score
2. Mahler Symphony no. 1 1927 edition
3. Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (1934)
4. Hindemith Mathis der Maler Symphony (1934)
5. Stravinsky Symphony in Three Movements (1946)
6. Stravinsky Symphony in C (1948)

I could not find this in Ross or Gould.

Are we dealing with an aspect of good notation and engraving practice that has disappeared because it represents complications for software programming or is it just a house style? I did find one contrary case in La Boheme.

Beautiful!
I think it is pretty easy to create a custom tremolo in any application.

And, thank you for pointing into this...

I agree with OCTO. This is very nice, John! Thanks for sharing and bring up.

This is right in line with LilyPond's default behavior when the notes are beamed together:
What does the one counter example in La Boheme look like, John? Honestly, I can't imagine it looking good if the tremolo beam is going in a different direction than beam, so I'm interested in seeing that.

Yes, stem slashes in Sibelius always go at the same upward angle. I agree that they should go parallel to beams where applicable. I suppose it’s just as readable either way, but certainly not as pretty when they clash. Nice going, LilyPond.

It was just pointed out at MM Forum by Ralph L Bowers Jr. that parallel beaming option is mentioned in Gould on page 223. It is not her first choice, however.

Yes, LilyPond is having a good day today!

i will check on the Boheme tomorrow, tismst.

John Ruggero wrote:It was just pointed out at MM Forum by Ralph L Bowers Jr. that parallel beaming option is mentioned in Gould on page 223. It is not her first choice, however.

As I read her, she has no ‘first choice’ as such for this.

I think it is a little presumptuous to consider an old engraving that one likes to be, per se, good engraving, and another option to be somehow bad, or by implication lazy.

I think this is a matter of fashion and to some extent house style.

To quote Durande's Feuille de style:
" Les barres de trémolos restent à la même distance de la ligature. Elle gardent toujours la même inclinaison : Elles ne sont pas parallèles à la ligature."

Looking through numerous scores I THINK it is a newer convention as against an older one, although the newer style seems to pre-date the use of computer-generated music-typesetting.

It's a little difficult to be sure as, for some reason, the vast majority of examples which I can find in more recent scores of repeated or tremolo notes combined with beams are in rising figures, while far fewer (not enough for a definitive answer) seem to be in falling figures with downward angled beams. Since Peter mentions the current Durand house style, I have noted that older Durand scores such as l'heure espagnole (Ravel) seem to use the earlier convention of having tremolo slashes parallel to beams.

David Ward wrote:

for some reason, the vast majority of examples which I can find in more recent scores of repeated or tremolo notes combined with beams are in rising figures

I also found the same phenomenon in the older scores I looked through and was overjoyed to find the Brahms to give as the perfect example. It might be at least a 10 to 1 against downward figures.

As I read her, she has no ‘first choice’ as such for this.

Gould first states in the section called Angle of Strokes that "Tremolo stroked slant diagonally from bottom left to top right, regardless of stem direction or beam angle." I read that and no further unfortunately. Then she mentions the steepnesses of such strokes in "some editions", and finally that in "other editions" strokes are placed parallel to the beams, with an example of this. How I missed the example is amazing to me.

I have found (or at least think I have found) that this pecking order is her usual nice way of showing her preferences. Ralph L. Bowers Jr. also interpreted it this way.

Peter West wrote:

I think it is a little presumptuous to consider an old engraving that one likes to be, per se, good engraving, and another option to be somehow bad, or by implication lazy.

I hope that it was not I who was being presumptuous, because I agree with you completely. That is why I posed the question: is it a simplification caused by computer programming issues (not laziness) or is it a house style? I never said that the newer convention was bad, but did quietly voice my preference.