NOTATIO

What are the rules for subdividing beams?

E. Gould wrote: [...] the number of beams separating the groups [should be] equal to the duration of
the groups they separate [...]

Fine.
But, when do beams should be divided?
See Bärenreiter edition of the BWV 1042:



Some groups are subdivided (e.g. mes.3), some are not (e.g. mes.1).
So are there any rules?

Ah, for the days when Bärenreiter was Bärenereiter.

As the Bach example largely illustrates--to my knowledge, composers of the 18th and early 19th centuries did not regularly subdivide secondary beams because there was an apparently high level of musical literacy. But as the 19th century wore on, secondary beams begin to be subdivided to make the rhythms clearer, even in solo music. I leave it to the reader to conclude why.

As I have mentioned (probably too many times) A. Arnstein demanded that his copyists subdivide secondary beams for all groups of fast notes into 4's, 3's and 2's to show every beat of a measure. Even 6 16ths in 3/8 were subdivided into 2's. While my instincts rebelled against a procedure that I felt was inherently unmusical, I understood his reasoning. Orchestral and session musicians must often sightread under great pressure without making errors and need all the help they can get. His system got excellent results.

While most publishers do not carry out secondary beam subdivision to the extent of Arnstein, it is still imposed on music in which it is needless. I see a little in the Bärenreiter example. I am even seeing it in Schenker's Beethoven Piano Sonatas. It is not a practice I follow in my editions because I adhere to the composer's notation as much as possible.

i changed the key .. with some minor mistakes here .. dang, this piece is so crowded ..
however the beaming is quite exceptional ... i wonder what is the original handwritten score wrote by Bach himself look like

@ odod: Thank you, nice, but this does not help to understand the beaming rule...

@ John: Thank you very much for your detailed answer.
However, there are still some things I don't understand; If I follow you, I should write:


Which is not what Bärenreiter edited. Or? Did I miss something?

Sorry i wasn't clear, Schneider. In my opinion, you should NOT do ANY secondary beam subdivisions period. Even the first Baerenreiter is not quite correct in that way, although it is better than most. Look at Bach's manuscript and follow what he has. And the arrangement for keyboard should also follow the beaming in the violin original manuscript.

My reasoning: secondary beam subdivision is unnecessary in music that is going to be carefully studied before it is performed because the composer's intentions should take precedence over the slight inconvenience of reading complex rhythms. Secondary beam division should only be imposed on orchestral parts and such when the musicians will not have a lot of preparation time.

Schneider wrote:@ odod: Thank you, nice, but this does not help to understand the beaming rule...

@ John: Thank you very much for your detailed answer.
However, there are still some things I don't understand; If I follow you, I should write:

BWV1001.png

Which is not what Bärenreiter edited. Or? Did I miss something?

Indeed i was just trying to find the answer as well ..

@john .. thanks for the explanation as always you have a wider knowledge than us ..

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk

odod wrote: ↑14 Nov 2019, 15:31[...] @john .. thanks for the explanation as always you have a wider knowledge than us ..

+1, Thank you John.

There's something rather wonderful about those curved beams. I wonder why it was never (as far as I know) done in printed music?

David Ward wrote: ↑20 Nov 2019, 08:31 There's something rather wonderful about those curved beams. I wonder why it was never (as far as I know) done in printed music?

I think I have seen them, but I can't remember where. G. Crumb - maybe?