Re: autobeaming over rests,Re: autobeaming over rests

[David Kastrup]

Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de> writes:

> Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Valentin Petzel <valentin@petzel.at> writes:
>>
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in
>>> say piano music where something like this would make sense.
>> I'd say that proportion seems low enough that providing automatisms for
>> it is more likely to cause confusion than help.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Of course the feature is never actually _needed_ as it only saves a
> couple of [ ] signs. But the example I gave in my earlier mail to
> Werner is fairly common, actually - I attach some bars from Bach's
> Ratswahlkantate BWV 29, and there are much more of these in the violin
> original from BWV 1006. I'd wager it's fairly standard notation to
> have beams over skips in piano music, actually.
>
> I don't quite see how the existence of a context property (switched
> off by default) enabling non-ubiquitous, but established notation
> could cause confusion. And after all, I think
>
> c'8[ s s d']
>
> without a second voice in between isn't that much more confusing than
> without the beam.

The lower voice could not possibly be autobeamed anyway since it starts
behind the beat.  You need to add all of the skips manually, and I don't
think that adding the single beam you want would be enough effort to
warrant autobeaming.

-- 
David Kastrup