Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Have your scores reviewed by other users. Comment on old and new published scores and on publishers.
User avatar
tisimst
Posts: 416
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 17:57
Location: UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Post by tisimst »

Yes, much better. Well done, Ben!
Music Typeface Designer & Engraver - LilyPond | Sibelius | Finale | MuseScore | Dorico | SMuFL | Inkscape | FontForge
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Post by OCTO »

I just wonder, benwiggy, why are the stems longer than octave?
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Post by Fred G. Unn »

benwiggy wrote: 07 Feb 2022, 09:21 I've decreased the length of the stub (down from the factory length of 1 and 5/24th spaces(!) to 7/8)
They are "supposed" to be the width of a notehead, right?

Gould
Image

Ross
Image

Stone
Image
benwiggy
Posts: 835
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 19:42

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Post by benwiggy »

John Ruggero wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 01:33 That looks fine, Ben. The factory needs to issue a recall on that default.
In fairness, the factory default for space after dot is 1/2 space; I had it to 0 for some reason. Just using 1/8 was enough to fix it.
Fred G. Unn wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 23:42 They are "supposed" to be the width of a notehead, right?
I guessed as much. A quick check in Affinity Designer shows that they are the teensiest bit wider than Bravura's noteheads, -- though because of the curve they look a lot wider. My Sebastian noteheads are a little smaller.
OCTO wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 08:33 I just wonder, benwiggy, why are the stems longer than octave?
Good point. Strangely, changing the "shortened stem length for 16ths and smaller" doesn't seem to affect this pair. There must be some other setting somewhere.... Though it does seem to balance the other groups.

I dislike it when sometimes you see a beam on short stems immediately followed by a much taller stemmed beam. To my eye, this:
Screenshot 18.png
Screenshot 18.png (21.45 KiB) Viewed 3601 times
looks better than this.
Screenshot 19.png
Screenshot 19.png (21.16 KiB) Viewed 3601 times
Possibly a bad example, but .. that kind of thing.
Post Reply