BEAMING

jirka,
can you confirm there is a bug or a „non“function in the Notation Options>Beam Grouping concerning beaming over rests?

I still can not do this!!!

I still can not do this!!!

You do realize you can edit your post to add an attachment. You do not have to add a new post.

This isn’t a bug: the ‘Allow rests within beams, maintain secondary beams’ works as intended: the secondary beam will continue when the rest is of the same duration as the surrounding notes. When the rest is of a different duration, there is always a secondary beam break.

I will consult with James, our beaming expert, whether or not this beaming pattern is possible at the moment.

Only a cumbersome workaround makes this common beaming possible in Finale, and the problem has been discussed for years; most recently at https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115000710208-Beams-over-rests. A fix has been promised.

Another famous example, which resembles the Dvorak, is the scampering connective theme in the first movement Grieg’s Piano Concerto (m. 31 etc.)

It would be sad if Dorico is as helpless as Finale in dealing with such a common notation.

Why do you want to do this? The original ms that is murkily reproduced above appears to be the same as the Simrock first edition and later authentic scores. The notation proposed above is much harder to read than the standard one having two continuous beams.

I wholeheartedly agree. The notation with continuous beaming is easier readable as well as prettier to look at. And it’s reasonable to call it standard. IMHO, Dorico ought to be able to produce this without any workarounds needed - which not even seems to be possible at this point. I think you would need to export to Illustrator or the like to finish it. Could you PLEASE consider to make it possible?

To be fair, Dorico’s default beaming in this situation is better than in the Dorico image above (which is the result of connecting secondary beams wherever it’s possible) and reasonably readable; though – I agree – definitely not preferable to the original notation.

Thanks Daniel, I hope it can be solved😃

James and I have talked about this today, and we do have a plan to add an extra option to allow the secondary beam to continue over a rest when the unit of the rest differs from the unit of the notes to either side. It won’t be in the forthcoming minor update, but we will try to get it into the next larger one if we can.

Well, Daniel and James, you rock ! Thank you for your open ears !

Many thanks DORICO TEAM!!!

Now it will be interesting to see which software enables this beaming first, Dorico or Finale. On your mark…

It’s not about who’s first: it’s about implementing a feature properly.

I suspect (given Finale’s been ignoring the problem for years) that Dorico might get there first.

Not that I’m biased or anything :smiley:

FINALE SOFTWARE it works!!!

This has been possible in Finale for a long time, the problem is that the 32-beam stubs are too long… the most common workaround seems to be to lengten the 16-beams and swap the 32-beam stubs (and adjust the rest level) manually. Perfectly doable, but of course a bit tedious :slight_smile:

Jirka1, look at the length of the 32nd beams though - they’re way too long in Finale.

Jirka1, do you read the tempo marking as “Molto Lento e grandioso”?