Beaming issue
2.1 / Windows 7/10
See attached file.
- Select the second note ("B") in measure 1.
- Double click on "Beam middle" in the "Beam Properties" palette.
Expected result: A new beam should form between notes 2 ("B") and 3 ("C")?
Actual result: Nothing happens. You have to select the 3rd note ("C") and apply "Beam middle" to get a beam. - UNDO and select the 3rd note ("C") in measure 1.
- Double click on "Beam Semiquaver sub" or "Beam semidemiquaver sub."
Expected result: "Beam semiquaver sub" creates a primary beam leading in to the note. "Beam semidemiquaver sub." has no effect (edited).
Actual result: A primary beam forms in both cases.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| beaming.mscz | 11.68 KB |
| beam_middle.png | 5.22 KB |
Comments
I don't see the issue. "Beam middle" is always about controlling the beam into a note. So you always need to select the note that currently starts a beam - or is unbeamed - and apply beam middle to that. And the
sub-beam" options are not relevant here, since there is only a single beam. Those options only control how beams after the first are rendered.
In reply to I don't see the issue. … by Marc Sabatella
never mind
In reply to I don't see the issue. … by Marc Sabatella
Two suggestions: (1) Change "Beam Middle" to "Beam in"; (2) Disable the "Beam semidemiquaver sub." command in cases where there are no sub-beams.
In reply to Two suggestions: (1) Change … by geetar
Good suggestions! Probably we should consider the naming of ll the beaming options to be more descriptive.
Regarding disabling the sub-beam commands, that's tricky, because these are palette elements, and these are normally always enabled, just not always effective. For instance, you can't add a staccato marking to a clef, but you wouldn't know this from the GUI. We could someday consider a generalized solution to make it clear which palette items do not apply to the current selection. But we'd also have to be careful we don't mislead people into thinking they can't drag & drop it, because that is always available regardless of the current selection. So I'm not sure there is a good way to model this.
The results are consistent with the beam properties you can see if you look at the time signature properties. The Beam Semiquaver (or 16th) sub tells it to insert a beam before the note that is a single beam all of the time, which is what happens. The C is considered (I think incorrectly) to be on a down beat. Since it has a start beam assigned to it, clicking any middle beam on the B would have no effect.
I don't know what Gould says, but I would expect the pickup measure to be represented as the up beat of 2 (a single note) followed by the 3rd beat (2 connected notes).
In reply to The results are consistent… by mike320
Yes, pickups should probably be beamed that way (or else all three together, as we do by default). A problem is we don't necessarily know which incomplete measures are intended to work that way versus which are incomplete for other reasons (eg, the same measure in the middle of the piece). We could special case measure 0, but that seems a bit awkward.