beaming issues
I want a cross staff beam to be like 
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
I want a cross staff beam to be like
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
It doesn't seem to make a difference whether you write the cross-staff notes originally on the upper staff or the lower staff. In both cases, MuseScore chooses to render the beam as you show it.
Have you considered pulling the beam downwards? That might make things more legible, as highlighted below:
![Cross-staff beaming.png]( "Cross-staff beaming.png")
In reply to It doesn't seem to make a… by DanielR
Yes, but there is another voice below
In reply to Yes, but there is another… by SLJK
So why not show the original full measure in your image, to give us some context?
In reply to So why not show the original… by DanielR
ok
In reply to ok by SLJK
There are some alternatives, but apparently not the one you want! Sorry about that...
For me the last option D is the clearest to read at first glance.
In reply to There are some alternatives,… by DanielR
i just made the beam invisible, prin out the sheet music, then draw the beam myself XD
But thanks for your help!
In reply to There are some alternatives,… by DanielR
Did you notice: there are two consecutive E (mi) notes, one in the lower staff and the other in the upper staff, there is no need for this. If the previous note could be written to the lower staff, the next could also be written.
PS: If this score is for pianoforte, the lower e note on the upper staff is unnecessary. It's not possible to hold it, but if it's for a two keyboard organ it can be played.
In reply to Did you notice: there are… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Yes, but the second E has to be played by the right hand.
In reply to Yes, but the second E has to… by SLJK
And there are other signs that can be used to indicate it.
In reply to Yes, but the second E has to… by SLJK
I thought about pointing this out as well even though it's kind of beside the point. But FWIW, I agree this particular example seems quite confusing. I don't see any reason for the first E ( the one that comes in just before beat 2) to have been duplicated between the staves either. And certainly the lower E in the RH cannot be sustained while also repeating it just after beat 2. It's also quite confusing to have the arpeggio on beat three notated as it is with the B on the bottom staff but the G on the top.
So really, the entire passage should be simplified greatly. I'd guess cross staff notation isn't needed at all here, a pianist would be able to determine for themselves which note to play which hand. Or a suggestion "(RH)" could be added next to notes that you believe would be best played with that hand.
On the other hand, if this is from a published score that you are attempting to copy exactly - which is I assume how you got the picture of how you'd prefer the beam to look - then maybe changing the notation to something more logical isn't something you're comfortable with. Depends on your goal in re-copying it, I guess.
(btw, I was also kind of assuming the key was Eb here, which would likely change the fingering and thus notions of which hand might best play which notes)
In reply to I thought about pointing… by Marc Sabatella
the key is e minor
In reply to the key is e minor by SLJK
Understood. Still, my other observations hold - this passage doesn't really make sense to me as notated and could be simplified pretty radically without changing a thing about the end result, and in any case, as mentioned, the beaming is correct as is, the image you show of the desired result is actually incorrect.
Select the cross-staffed note and give it a 1sp X-offset in the "chord" section of the inspector.
In reply to Select the cross-staffed… by jeetee
... to stretch its beam wider. Good suggestion!
FWIW, according to Gould, our default is correct here, and the example of the desired layout is wrong, at least according to the standard Gould follows. Her rule is, if the notes connected by such a sub-beam have opposite stem directions, the sub-beam goes to the side of the main beam opposite the first note. Here is the relevant passage, see the third example:
The goal is to avoid unnecessary beam corners, and you can see our layout does this while the "desired" arrangement suffers that flaw. So I don't think this is just some quirk of Gould's, I suspect in this case most engravers would make the same choice.