On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote: As to the question of what is correct *now*, things are not quite as simple as you suggest. In particular, the proper number of beams for a septuplet has been a vexed question for a very long time. Many composers follow the rule you cite, that a tuplet should always be beamed according to the next slower "plain" note value (note that the duplet is an exception to this). Other composers, including me, follow a different rule: that the beaming of a tuplet should follow the *closest* plain note value, with the triplet being the dividing point (anything faster than a triplet gets more beams).
When I prepare music for printing I try to keep the player in mind, because I was a player before I was a copyist/engraver, composer or arranger. And I am still active as a player, so I can still think that way. What's gonna make it easier to play? It seems to me that 7 16ths are a lot of notes to fit into one beat (one less than twice as many), whereas 7 32nds seem more natural (one less than the normal number). I would never go so far as to put 8 or 9 16ths beamed together--they'd have to be 32nds. But I don't get to decide in this case, since I'm working for someone else. I discussed this with him, and he opted to keep it like the original. This is a case where an arpeggio is being extended by one interval at a time (6 notes, then 7, 8 and 9), and it's pretty clear to the eye, just looking at it. But as a player, when it gets to 7 and above, I want to see 32nds.
******************************************** Lon Price, Los Angeles
|
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
