JN: "What would a typical example be, where the editor would beam
differently from the composer?"
Well, take Scarlatti K.84, that I'm working on right now:
a simple scale
c'16 d' e' f' g'8 a''16 b'' c'' d'' e'' f'' g''8 a'''16 b'''
The most readable barring would be
[c'16 d' e' f'][ g'8 a''16 b''][ c'' d'' e'' f''][ g''8 a'''16 b''']
and this is what you find in most 1800-1950 editions.
But, Scarlatti writes
c'16 [d' e' f'] g'8 [a''16 b''] c'' [d'' e'' f''] g''8 [a'''16 b''']
which sounds very different, with much more character, when you
articulate it that way. (Longo actually left Scarlatti's beaming
alone in this case, but not in other cases.)
In fact, Scarlatti probably was using this notation to say:
play the unbeamed notes with one hand, the beamed notes
with the other.
For another example (lots of these in J.S.Bach),
[c'32 d' e' f' g' a'' b'' c'' d'' e'' f'' g'' a''' b''' c'''16~]
means play it with a swoop of sound, but
[[c'32 d' e' f'][ g' a'' b'' c'']] [[d'' e'' f'' g''][ a''' b''' c'''16~]]
means to play it measured. Lily does the latter - breaking
multi-beams into subgroups - and I usually want to stop her
from doing it with Scarlatti.
John
