On 7 Nov 2005 at 8:49, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > In 18th century sources reversed beams can happen (and are likely to > happen) whenever there is a larger leap within a beamed group. That's > all there is to it, imo.
But leaps mean something and the reversed beams, I believe, help mark them clearly. To me, by removing them, you are removing one of the clues to contour that could be helpful to a reader of the music. Also, by removing them for wide leaps, you often have to introduce a beam break or you'll end up with horridly ugly beaming (a steap angle or an extremely long stem for at least one of the notes). By your line of reasoning, I'd think we should remove convert the conventional appaggiatura notation into 4 16th notes. You don't do *that*, so where are you drawing the line on what is meaningful about the original notation and what is not? -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
