Page 3 of 7
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 29 Jan 2016, 21:11
by OCTO
It is possible to remove the staff lines in F with the Pettersson beams plugin.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 29 Jan 2016, 21:36
by Knut
Peter West wrote:The aim with beams is to enhance the experience of the eye following the contour of the notes and to avoid ugly white wedges where a beam intersects a stem line or a black wedge where a beam barely touches a line so the line makes it look thicker. 3 or 4 beams are difficult to angle well when they lie in the staff. There is a threshold at which the angle of the note contour is so steep that we no longer need to play with minute adjustments of angles, but can boldly angle them across the staff without causing wedges, as in the Gal Hartman example. He has however cheated a little by removing the staff lines where they might be ugly. this is not possible in Finale or Sibelius, but could be achieved by exporting to illustrator.
The cheating is what fascinates me.
It is in fact possible to do this in Finale by attaching a white filled rectangle as an articulation, but considering the amount of manual tweaking needed for each beam, this is extremely tedious.
OCTO wrote:It is possible to remove the staff lines in F with the Pettersson beams plugin.
I don't think this is correct. Patterson Beams has the ability to create 'French beams', where the stems do not cross the beams (except for at the outer edges), but I don't think erasing staff lines behind beams is an option.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 29 Jan 2016, 23:07
by OCTO
Now I am getting crazy. I am almost 100% sure I used that option before. Not having computer now I am unable to check..
EDIT: You are correct. Patterson makes beam space within staff-space and removes the stems inside of the beams. I apologize for the confusion.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 00:00
by John Ruggero
I think that implementing this is something that a Finale plug-in developer might be interested in.
It is probably rash to say this without seeing this "opaque" beaming in action, but I think that it could be a true engraving advance; and one that is so interesting because it is only possible through computer engraving.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 00:13
by Knut
John Ruggero wrote:I think that implementing this is something that a Finale plug-in developer might be interested in.
It is probably rash to say this without seeing this "opaque" beaming in action
Here's the entire sample page:
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 03:28
by John Ruggero
Thanks, Knut. There are things that I don't care for about the engraving, particularly the slurs. And the opaque beams are not always carried out well. But the idea itself is excellent and should be an option in Finale, Sibelius etc. just as French beams are an option.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 09:07
by Peter West
OCTO wrote:It is possible to remove the staff lines in F with the Pettersson beams plugin.
Really? I don't see how to do that. There is a "French beams" option, which removes the STEMS between the beams, I don't see where it removes the STAFF lines.
Sorry guys, my page didn't update so I hadn't noticed people already said this. However, I think it is ugly. The skill of beam angle adjustment is one of the arts of good engraving. I think removing the staff lines looks like an ugly erasure and repair has been made.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 10:27
by Knut
Peter West wrote:OCTO wrote:It is possible to remove the staff lines in F with the Pettersson beams plugin.
Really? I don't see how to do that. There is a "French beams" option, which removes the STEMS between the beams, I don't see where it removes the STAFF lines.
Sorry guys, my page didn't update so I hadn't noticed people already said this. However, I think it is ugly. The skill of beam angle adjustment is one of the arts of good engraving. I think removing the staff lines looks like an ugly erasure and repair has been made.
I can see your point in the majority of cases, Peter, but I have to say that angling 32nd beams or smaller without the stafflines intersecting in an undesirable way sometimes seems next to impossible. The long beam groups in Homage à r. by Xenakis is certainly a good example of this.
Then again, maybe my skills are just lacking in this regard.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 14:41
by MJCube
Something else jumped out at me the moment I looked at Knut’s example: The angle of those beams is so steep that both the beams and the spaces between are noticeably thinner than normal. Like using a “shear” tool in a graphics program. (See
Making Notes, Part 10, the subhead “Shearing vs. rotating beams” for a thorough examination.)
Because of this, I didn’t even notice the erasure of staff lines until it was pointed out, and even then I had forgotten that French beams omit the stems (not the staff lines) until it was explained. I have to say I do like the suppressed staff lines. And it would be even more of an advantage with the beam angle less steep, where the “wedge” hazard is greater.
Re: On Beaming
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 15:47
by Peter West
MJCube wrote:Something else jumped out at me the moment I looked at Knut’s example: The angle of those beams is so steep that both the beams and the spaces between are noticeably thinner than normal. Like using a “shear” tool in a graphics program. (See
Making Notes, Part 10, the subhead “Shearing vs. rotating beams” for a thorough examination.)
Because of this, I didn’t even notice the erasure of staff lines until it was pointed out, and even then I had forgotten that French beams omit the stems (not the staff lines) until it was explained. I have to say I do like the suppressed staff lines. And it would be even more of an advantage with the beam angle less steep, where the “wedge” hazard is greater.
Patterson Beams in Finale does a really good job of adjusting the beam thickness (and thus reducing the space) on beams that are steeply angled. I don't like the example here for that reason also (and of course the awful slur, as John pointed out already)