MuseScore 4 Beam Angles

Recommendations concerning notation and publishing software in a non-partisan environment.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: MuseScore 4 Beam Angles

Post by John Ruggero »

I see I screwed up the second measure of my two Finale examples, but they are correct now. Here is the way I might try to correct by hand:
Finale with Hand work.png
Finale with Hand work.png (53.52 KiB) Viewed 2862 times
I do it by eye and have yet to develop a system except to keep the beams roughly parallel to and continuous with the prevailing motion of the note groups both in part and as a whole, to avoid including staff lines whenever possible, but when forced to include them, to place them roughly in the middle of the group. As far as the length of the staff lines, I try to make the shortest stems about an octave in length.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: MuseScore 4 Beam Angles

Post by Fred G. Unn »

A few of the examples here are, well, just wrong according to Ross. The primary (bottom in this example) beam only has a few possible positions and hanging out in a space is not one of them. Here's Ross page 121:

Image

Normally, with a single beam the following applies:
1) An ascending beam contained within the staff can never begin with Sit nor end with Hang.
2) A descending beam contained within the staff can never begin with Hang nor end with Sit.

With the addition of a secondary beam, placement options are even more limited. Hang is now not an option for either end of a downstemmed primary beam because the secondary beam cannot end in a space. As a result, there are really only a few possible placements here. I think these are all "correct" according to Ross depending on your tolerance for stem lengths and beam angles.

Image

I don't think there are many other "correct" solutions if you are following Ross beaming rules.
User avatar
David Ward
Posts: 526
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 19:50
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Contact:

Re: MuseScore 4 Beam Angles

Post by David Ward »

Heavens! I am not a pro-engraver, but a composer and erstwhile (but no more: old age!) performer. I really dislike the Ross shallow and mixed beams, which I find visually irritating. On the other hand I like John's latest example.
Finale 25.5 & F 26.3.1
Mac OS 10.13.6 & 10.14.6
https://composers-uk.com/davidward/news-links/
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: MuseScore 4 Beam Angles

Post by Fred G. Unn »

Well, Ross himself would never actually “allow” the shallow example due to the stem length. That was just my own example showing the only possible “allowable” attachment points for the beams. Henle may very well use the shallow example if they were to publish this though. Some of the stems just seem too long in the steep example, so I’m kinda leaning towards the mixed solution. The main point I was trying to make though is that there are only a handful of possibilities because of the rules governing beam placement. They can’t just go anywhere unless you just toss out the Ross guidelines.
Post Reply