Re: Beaming over a rest before a subdivision

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Urs,

> I see two approaches to this:
> 
> a) have the number of beams correspond to the actual duration of the
> note (third attachment)
> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated as
> usual (fourth attachment)
> 
> Any opinions (or references to what the books say)?

Gould talks about this kind of issue, of course (pg. 165, etc.), but not 
surprisingly doesn’t give your precise example. If I read all of her examples 
correctly, one example she *does* give (with values double of yours) taken 
together with another example on the previous page implies that your third 
attachment (with the number of beams given according to the note value) seems 
correct.

One further way to clarify the beat structure — which is always of principle 
concern — would be stemlets (which Gould also discusses in great detail, and 
recommends in many situations).

Personally, of the four attachments you included, I prefer the third; depending 
on how complex the music is around this excerpt, I might futher prefer the 
stemlet version.

Hope this helps!
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: address@hidden