From: "d. collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
this beaming by four was only recommended if there were
only 8th notes/quavers under the beam: if you have a dotted 8th and a 16th,
for instance, you should revert to beaming by two.
Dennis,
Again, I'm not quite sure there was such a rule for beaming 8th
I can't quote you where to find that, other than in the standard
reference books on notation (possibly in Kurt Stone or in Gardner Read
or in Ted Ross) but I agree with breaking the beam if one of the beats
is a different rhythm (such as your example of dotted-8th/16th).
d. collins wrote:
Ol
At 3:15 PM +0100 11/29/03, d. collins wrote:
Thanks, Ole, for your reply. I remember reading somewhere, but can't
find it, of course, that this beaming by four was only recommended
if there were only 8th notes/quavers under the beam: if you have a
dotted 8th and a 16th, for instance, you should
From: "d. collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
When is it better to beam eighth notes/quavers by four rather than by two
(with C as time signature), in 17th-century pieces? Are there any rules for
this?
Dennis,
You hardly find any exampels where it is beamed in two, and the time signature is always C
