NOTATIO

Mozart's example is totally amazing, thanks John for sharing that!
It is far more contemporary than I could ever imagine.

I agree - follow the manuscript. Some people will shake their heads, ignore that.

David, I am glad you agree. You probably know this little story, but for anyone who doesn't:

Brahms was with his gang at the local tavern, and someone rose and proposed a toast "to our greatest composer" looking directly at Brahms. Brahms got up and raised his stein saying: "Yes, to Mozart."

Besides, it's his birthday today. Happy Birthday, Wolfgang! We grow older, but your music doesn't.

You are welcome, OCTO. I was pretty impressed with the notation too.

Just as a general guideline, I decided to look up 16th beaming since it had been a while since I thought about the subject. I didn't really see this addressed in Ross, which was a bit of a surprise considering how many pages he devotes to beaming. If anyone is interested, here's what Gould has to say about the matter. (Sorry for the crummy scan.)

That is of course a great guideline.
But what is striking in Mozart's example is his break-rule attitude which results in poly-beat music, in fact, very contemporary, a Bartok-like way.

Many composers have had a different attitude toward musical notation than many editors and engravers, which is what I have tried to call attention to in the threads called Composers vs Engravers.

Thank you to everyone who's contributed to this thread. Especial thanks to John R for the Mozart sample! Fascinating and quite a surprise. But I see from Fred's quote from Gould that she would seem to be advocating possibility A.

However, I understand the advice that it would be best if my beaming matched the other instruments with the same rhythm, so I'm now waiting until the conductor returns from abroad so I can discover which edition he plans on using.

Andreo Basisto

Fred G. Unn wrote: ↑27 Jan 2017, 15:05I didn't really see this addressed in Ross, which was a bit of a surprise considering how many pages he devotes to beaming.

Generally, Ross is much more concerned with the technical and cosmetic aspects of music engraving than the rules of music notation. Consistent and beautiful beaming is not something that can be summarized in a simple rule or definition, even without considering stylistic, metric or other strictly notational aspects, which explains the generous number of pages devoted to the subject in his book.

Tempo is a big, essential factor in beaming style, often overlooked by modern editors. At this tempo, it is easy to count and feel every 16th note. At a fast tempo one feels the beats and places 16th notes within each beat; thus the usefulness of beaming to the beat. (I regret missing the composer’s birthday in this thread! A belated toast.)

Fred, thanks for the example from Gould. While I generally agree with her, here I disagree with her appraisal of "elegance" in the second example on page 165. The first line with the broken secondary beams looks fussy, unnatural and disjointed, and the rhythm in the third measure is a nightmare of intelligibility. The second line is simple, clear, elegant, and the one commonly seen in the literature.

Andreo, you are most welcome. It was a surprise to me as well!

MJCube, your point about tempo is well-taken.

I found it instructive so see that Mozart was also concerned about legibility and didn't beam over the bar line. He felt it sufficient to beam against the beat within each measure only, and assumed that the player would carry on as if it were beamed across the bar line. I see this over and over in the notational practices of these composers. They know standard practice better than the editors and engravers, and know when to deviate from it when necessary to communicate their ideas; but they never to go beyond what is comprehensible, because they are so concerned about clear communication.