Hi all-- I’m sorry to veer a little bit off of topic (ie- Dorico specific things) however this is such a thriving forum I thought it might be nice to have a thread specifically devoted to people who would like second opinions on notation practices. I do not mean to abuse the scope of this forum or to ignore the many other great notation-specific forums out there, but for non-scientific things, it would still be nice for anyone who might benefit from it, or is simply new to the world of notation and engraving. (Besides, lets face it… we all love Dorico because of how pretty it can make a score! ) To the Steinberg moderators, if you decide to pull this thread down I won’t be offended in the slightest.
All of that out of the way, I’m working on a piano composition right now. I am an organist by trade and so I’m quite used to staring down dense counterpoint. As a result, I’m fairly certain that the notation I’m willing to put up with is a bit skewed compared to many pianists. I know that the goal of notation is always to achieve the greatest clarity. Some pianist-composers simply use pedal markings to create the sonorous effect without notating as strictly. My organist brain won’t permit that, and I want to make sure that when there is a voice, it is accounted for at least within the measure. As this part of the score has the melody wrapped up with a flowing sub-texture, I suddenly was befuddled a bit as to best practice. So here we go, time to vote!
A was my initial entry. Again, this made sense to my organist brain but it looked a little dense to me. B is with split beaming. C is when I switched the voices and D is when I split the beams again. My guess, seeing all 4 side-by-side is D, but I am torn between splitting and not splitting the beaming across the measure. A measure-length beam creates a certain continuity in my mind, but it simultaneously obscures the contour of the passage which is also very important. (And I wont even mention the permutations with cross-staff beaming for the right hand… )
Cheers!