# How to properly notate lyrics when beaming 8th notes



## Morodiene (May 2, 2017)

I'm writing music for a choir, and I'm not sure what direction to go with beaming 8th notes and slurs.

I've been taught that you want your beams to reflect the beats in the measure. So if you are in 4/4 time and you have an 8th rest followed by 3- 8th notes, you would have the rest, and a single 8th, followed by 2 beamed 8ths:







However, when this same figure is sung and the 3- 8th notes are on one syllable, they are slurred together. Do you also beam these 3 together to reinforce that it's all one syllable, or do you still notate it according to the beats as above and just rely upon the slur to indicate it's all one one syllable?






I've seen in older scores where the beams for lyrics reflect syllables, but wondering if that is still done in modern notation.


----------



## resound (May 2, 2017)

Both ways are technically correct. In the case that the three eighth notes are one syllable, I would be tempted to beam them together as in the second example.


----------



## JJP (May 2, 2017)

Conventions for beaming and slurring lyrics have changed over the years, so you'll get limited benefit from looking at older notation. At one point vocal parts only used flags, no beams. Those parts are a nightmare to read.

The slur is always as you have notated. Today you will encounter the beaming done either way, but it usually depends on the overall beaming convention for the work.

Most works will beam every beat (two 8ths) in 4/4. Others, often more contemporary jazz/pop type writing, beam four 8ths together in 4/4 time. This is especially common in jazz and styles where the bar can be read or felt in more of a two feel.

In the latter case, you may end up with three 8ths beamed together. However, note that this is NOT to emphasize the lyric slur, it is only to help identify the beat grouping.

There is also another issue. Some engravers will still separate out the beats in the case you illustrate even when they are beaming four 8ths together in 4/4 time. That is because in a quick glance the three beamed 8ths can resemble a triplet. Anything that can cause a tiny pause in sight reading is discouraged in contemporary studio copying circles. It opens the potential for an error on the part of the performer.

For other time signatures, the beat grouping will generally follow the standard beat grouping for the music regardless of the slurring.

I transcribe and create hundreds of vocal charts for Disney each year. I and many of my colleagues prefer beaming every beat in 4/4 time for most cases. The slur clearly shows the melisma, and the breaking of the beams makes the rhythm clear.

In most cases I would notate as in your first example because it most clearly shows all the necessary information to the performer.

On an unrelated point, is that "mf" supposed to happen on beat four? That's the way it appears in your examples. It's a bit unusual but may or may not be what you want. If it is to occur on beat four, then that's even more reason to break that beam.


----------



## resound (May 2, 2017)

JJP said:


> Conventions for beaming and slurring lyrics have changed over the years, so you'll get limited benefit from looking at older notation. At one point vocal parts only used flags, no beams. Those parts are a nightmare to read.
> 
> The slur is always as you have notated. Today you will encounter the beaming done either way, but it usually depends on the overall beaming convention for the work.
> 
> ...


Do you work with DCVI?


----------



## JJP (May 2, 2017)

resound said:


> Do you work with DCVI?


Yes.


----------



## resound (May 2, 2017)

JJP said:


> Yes.


I just saw your interview on the Finale blog, very cool! I occasionally do transcription work for DCVI as well.


----------



## Morodiene (May 2, 2017)

JJP said:


> Conventions for beaming and slurring lyrics have changed over the years, so you'll get limited benefit from looking at older notation. At one point vocal parts only used flags, no beams. Those parts are a nightmare to read.
> 
> The slur is always as you have notated. Today you will encounter the beaming done either way, but it usually depends on the overall beaming convention for the work.
> 
> ...


Thank you! This was very informative, and I hadn't thought about it being mistaken as triplets, so I will go with the beaming in the first example.

Regarding the mf, I'm just in the early stages of composing this piece and I'm just putting in the lyrics now, but will definitely correct the placement of the dynamic!


----------



## wcreed51 (May 2, 2017)

Here's how Schubert did it...


----------



## SillyMidOn (May 2, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> I'm writing music for a choir, and I'm not sure what direction to go with beaming 8th notes and slurs.
> 
> I've been taught that you want your beams to reflect the beats in the measure. So if you are in 4/4 time and you have an 8th rest followed by 3- 8th notes, you would have the rest, and a single 8th, followed by 2 beamed 8ths:
> 
> ...


There is quite a heated discussion on the subject over on the muse score forum:

https://musescore.org/en/node/4597

Both solutions look correct to me, the bottom one intrinsically looks slightly neater and more sensible, as the three notes are on "ho". I remember at uni learning that vocal parts are never beamed, but I think that has been abandoned.


----------



## Morodiene (May 2, 2017)

wcreed51 said:


> Here's how Schubert did it...


I think the problem is that Schubert was not using modern notation practices. So that's why I wasn't sure which to do.

Also there is the question of consistency, since the orchestra is notated (well, will be when I write it) according to the beats. So for the same melodic pattern that is doubled in the orchestra, it should show the 8th rest-8th note, and two beamed 8ths in the orchestral part, and then 8th rest -3 8th notes beamed in the vocal part. So that could be messy too.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

JJP said:


> At one point vocal parts only used flags, no beams. Those parts are a nightmare to read.



Agree 100%. Especially if the music is fast and rhythmically complex (changing meters etc.). When singing, I prefer to read music with beaming that reflects beats.

JJP, practical and knowledgeable as always.


----------



## Morodiene (May 3, 2017)

OK, so how does this look? 






Now I'm wondering if I should beam the 4-8ths in the following measures:






It looks a bit cleaner, I think. I have in other movements beamed 4-8ths together in 4/4 time and I seem to recall being told once that this was acceptable as well (not just in jazz). Thoughts?


----------



## sinkd (May 3, 2017)

Your first example is better. It is even possible that you could break the first beam in the second and third bars (with the comma in the text). Another advantage to the two eighth-note grouping is that it allows you to shorten stem lengths a little, which can help you tighten up the space between text and the staff above.


----------



## JohnG (May 3, 2017)

sinkd said:


> It is even possible that you could break the first beam in the second and third bars (with the comma in the text).



Agree -- I would make that break in beaming too, even though it breaks the beat in the middle. Also, I agree with @sinkd that the first version is easier to sight-read.


----------



## Morodiene (May 3, 2017)

sinkd said:


> Your first example is better. It is even possible that you could break the first beam in the second and third bars (with the comma in the text). Another advantage to the two eighth-note grouping is that it allows you to shorten stem lengths a little, which can help you tighten up the space between text and the staff above.


So is it standard to break the beams when there's punctuation? I'm inclined to do that because to me, breaking the beam makes it easier to sight read.


----------



## SillyMidOn (May 3, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> OK, so how does this look?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Use then first version but definitely break the beam on the two occasions where there is "na, ho" and make sure that "ho" is directly under the notes it should be - notation programs don't always place the lyrics in the exact right place. It's worth going through the whole piece and checking that all the syllables are properly aligned with the notes above, then if you are using Sibelius and extracting parts, check again, as things can get misaligned during extraction.


----------



## JJP (May 3, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> So is it standard to break the beams when there's punctuation? I'm inclined to do that because to me, breaking the beam makes it easier to sight read.



That is not standard practice. The punctuation may have little bearing on the way it is sung. Many lyrics do not use any punctuation.

If a pause or lift is intended at a comma, then the composer or arranger should phrase the musical line to reflect that. Breaking beams at every punctuation only obscures the rhythm and causes confusion as to the musical intent. If there is a line of 8th notes without rests and one beam is broken in a non-standard way at a comma, the question becomes, "Why was that done?" Is a pause or breath desired there? Is there an emphasis after the break? If either of those are desired, why was there no articulation, rest, or slur to indicate musically what was desired from the performers?

Furthermore, if you have a series of short, syncopated phrases with commas and the beams broken at every comma, you will quickly make all but the simplest rhythms extremely difficult to sight read. This is similar to the reason why the style of beaming each syllable individually was abandoned. The notated musical line must be clear to the performer.


----------



## JJP (May 3, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> I have in other movements beamed 4-8ths together in 4/4 time and I seem to recall being told once that this was acceptable as well (not just in jazz). Thoughts?



Beaming four 8ths in a group is acceptable, however many vocalists I've encountered prefer beaming in groups of two unless the phrasing and feel of the work imply otherwise. It's really a judgement call. However, even when beaming in groups of four, I would still try to avoid three 8ths beamed together in 4/4 time when performers may be expected to sight read. This is especially true if there are tuplets anywhere else in the work.


----------



## Luke W (May 3, 2017)

Everything JJP says also reflects the choral music notation norms among Nashville publishers. I only beam four 8ths together for piano or sometimes instrumental parts. Never for vocal charts unless you have an extended melisma like Hark the Herald Angels Sing: "Glo - ooo - ooo - ria." Even then it would depend on how it looked to my eye - does it help the singer read or confuse even for a moment.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> OK, so how does this look?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My friend, if I can be quick and blunt, the answer is the 2nd one.


----------



## Morodiene (May 3, 2017)

Luke W said:


> Everything JJP says also reflects the choral music notation norms among Nashville publishers. I only beam four 8ths together for piano or sometimes instrumental parts. Never for vocal charts unless you have an extended melisma like Hark the Herald Angels Sing: "Glo - ooo - ooo - ria." Even then it would depend on how it looked to my eye - does it help the singer read or confuse even for a moment.


I do have melismas just like you're talking about that are 8th notes for an entire measure, so I think for those it makes more sense to beam them all together. I think having the breaks make it look more busy.

@Rodney Money I'm inclined to think so also. The first one looks just too busy for me and really doesn't help the singer out.


----------



## sinkd (May 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> My friend, if I can be quick and blunt, the answer is the 2nd one.


Can you explain why you disagree?


----------



## JohnG (May 3, 2017)

JJP said:


> f you have a series of short, syncopated phrases with commas and the beams broken at every comma, you will quickly make all but the simplest rhythms extremely difficult to sight read. This is similar to the reason why the style of beaming each syllable individually was abandoned. The notated musical line must be clear to the performer.



I think this ^^ reflects the best practice, which is to apply common sense and consider how singers actually read music. I find it harder to sight-read music that has every short note value broken out because it happens to be on a single syllable.


----------



## Luke W (May 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> My friend, if I can be quick and blunt, the answer is the 2nd one.


As a professional engraver of choral music, the first one is absolutely, without question, the preferable option. That second option would make session singers complain - and my editor would make me change it.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

Luke W said:


> As a professional engraver of choral music, the first one is absolutely, without question, the preferable option. That second option would make session singers complain - and my editor would make me change it.


It's in 4/4, and that's how Alfred Publishing publishes my choral music.


----------



## Luke W (May 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> It's in 4/4, and that's how Alfred Publishing publishes my choral music.


Could you post an example? I'm surprised to hear Alfred would use that approach.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

sinkd said:


> Can you explain why you disagree?


It's in 4/4, and that's how Alfred Publishing publishes my choral music.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

Luke W said:


> Could you post an example? I'm surprised to hear Alfred would use that approach.


Sure, my friend, let me see if I can find an example.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

Luke W said:


> Could you post an example? I'm surprised to hear Alfred would use that approach.


Here you go.


----------



## JJP (May 3, 2017)

A few things to note about this example relevant to the discussion are

The publisher has opted beam four 8ths together, which is acceptable. Examples could be given from other publishers that choose otherwise. In this case there are lots of arpeggiated figures in the accompaniment which lend themselves well to such beaming. However, understanding the overall work would help to inform judgement. Meter or tempo changes in other parts of the work may create different decisions on how to beam the section in this example.
The 8th beaming convention is broken when there are groupings of three 8ths after an 8th rest.
The beams are not broken for punctuation.
Without knowing the overall feel of the piece, I may not have chosen this style of engraving if it was just a vocal part and not a reduced score as this appears to be. The beaming of four 8ths in this melodic context tends to de-emphasize the shape of the melodic line. However, if it was being done for a publisher or supervising copyist who had a stylesheet which required specific beaming, then there's no discussion to be had. You follow the stylesheet.

Also be aware that there are subtle differences in engraving for publishing classical works and studio recording. In classical publishing, it can be assumed that musicians will receive the music before rehearsal and have time to practice.

For non-classical and recording purposes the musicians may be sight-reading at rehearsal. That rehearsal may be a simple run-through a few seconds before recording where every second counts. In live TV and stage performances, the musicians may be working in poor lighting. In those cases clearly highlighting the rhythm, meter, melodic shape, phrasing, etc. are paramount and result in different engraving decisions.


----------



## JohnG (May 3, 2017)

Also, Rodney, your published example doesn't actually address Morodiene's situation in which you have an eighth rest followed by three eighth notes (quaver rest followed by three quaver pitches). As a singer, I would rather read the first one, not the second one. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but I don't think it's as easy to read, especially sight-read.

Every week we read different stuff so it's not as though there's Only One Way To Do It. Both ways will work. It is always, as JJP says, a balance for the singers of understanding groupings (like in 7/8 or 5/8 bars, for example), reading text, and actually executing what the composer had in mind.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Also, Rodney, your published example doesn't actually address Morodiene's situation in which you have an eighth rest followed by three eighth notes (quaver rest followed by three quaver pitches). As a singer, I would rather read the first one, not the second one. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but I don't think it's as easy to read, especially sight-read.
> 
> Every week we read different stuff so it's not as though there's Only One Way To Do It. Both ways will work. It is always, as JJP says, a balance for the singers of understanding groupings (like in 7/8 or 5/8 bars, for example), reading text, and actually executing what the composer had in mind.


I was addressing the 4 eighth-notes.

Edit: on a second look, that rhythm is in the piano and the cello part though.


----------



## JT (May 3, 2017)

From an engraver's point of view, I've worked for several publishers, they each have their own style and do things differently. There's no right or wrong. But for the ones I've worked for, beaming in 2's is used more often for voices, beam in 4's for instruments..


----------



## JohnG (May 3, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> that rhythm is in the piano and the cello part though.



Yes and, not to be a dog on a bone about it, but it's beamed the first way, not the second. That's the way I would notate it. I think it generally depends on the context and what looks right for the music.

There's also a style of beaming rests, which was in vogue for a while in some more _avant garde_ pieces. Haven't noticed that lately, but in some circumstances it can help one find one's way around a really tough rhythmic passage.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Yes and, not to be a dog on a bone about it, but it's beamed the first way, not the second. That's the way I would notate it. I think it generally depends on the context and what looks right for the music.
> 
> There's also a style of beaming rests, which was in vogue for a while in some more _avant garde_ pieces. Haven't noticed that lately, but in some circumstances it can help one find one's way around a really tough rhythmic passage.


Lol. John, I think we are actually agreeing on the same thing, my friend. When I said the 2nd one I was talking about the 4 8th note example, but in the first picture I prefer the same as you and not the 3 8th notes beamed together.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 3, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> OK, so how does this look?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This was the one when I said the 2nd one.


----------



## sinkd (May 4, 2017)

Thanks for the example from Alfred, Rodney. I think part of my assessment has to do with the fact that we are talking about the setting of Latin text. It is possible that historical context plays a part. Maybe similar to the way that a jazz chart does not swing unless it is engraved in a way that looks hand written? This is why there are house styles and music engraving is an art.


----------



## Luke W (May 4, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> Here you go.


Well, color me surprised. Even though I thought you were going to post an example with an eighth rest followed by 3 8th notes beamed together (which the piano LH and cello specifically avoid), I'm still surprised by the 4 8ths beamed together. I've not worked for Alfred but know some of the people there. Obviously, an intervention needs to be convened forthwith


----------



## Morodiene (May 5, 2017)

Very interesting discussion! I was told that since my music may be sightread to test it out and see how it sounds, to make it as easy to read as possible. 

So I agree on the 8th rest + 3 8th notes, that they should not be beamed together to avoid confusion with triplets. But with melismas it's OK to beam 4 8ths together in 4/4. 

The question about whether to break the beams for punctuation, I think could make it look messy. Plus, the director may decide to not have them breath there, or he may. If there's a breath, then changing the beaming makes sense, but if not it would probably be confusing. So I probably wouldn't win any points for breaking the beam in that case.

@sinkd regarding the historical text. That's an interesting thought. I was just looking at Bach's B Minor published by Barenreiter in 1955, and here's an example of the 8th rest + 3 8th notes, but they chose to beam them on the "e" syllable of eleison:






And then here are some 8th note melismas beamed together in 4s:






Also, there aren't any slurs here at all, and so it seems they've chosen to use beams as a means of showing syllables, but they will break a series of 8ths at the midpoint of the measure. There's another page later where it's all 8th notes on one syllable in a measure and they're beamed 4 together.

I think this does look much easier to read. Could it be they chose to do this due to the polyphonic nature of the music? My piece is a fugue, by the way, but this is the only movement of the work that is polyphonic, so I don't know if it would be confusing to not be consistent throughout the work.


----------



## sinkd (May 5, 2017)

Here the beams are entirely governed by the the syllabification. In the penultimate bar even going so far as to break beams in syncopation, beaming the middle two of a four eighth group. This does look easier to read, and the four note eighth groupings in the melismas also look right to me for this music. I may need to adjust my editorial sensibilities


----------



## resound (May 5, 2017)

Interesting. I don't find that easier to read. For example, in the second to last measure there are two eighth notes beamed together for the syllable "Ky". The way they are beamed together makes it seem that it starts on a downbeat. At first glance this would make the rhythm much less clear for me, especially after those broken 16th notes.


----------



## resound (May 5, 2017)

I think this it is safe to say that there is a reason that publishers have strayed away from the standard of breaking beaming by syllables.


----------



## Luke W (May 5, 2017)

sinkd said:


> Here the beams are entirely governed by the the syllabification. In the penultimate bar even going so far as to break beams in syncopation, beaming the middle two of a four eighth group. This does look easier to read, and the four note eighth groupings in the melismas also look right to me for this music. I may need to adjust my editorial sensibilities


"Syllabification" is a great word


----------



## sinkd (May 5, 2017)

resound said:


> Interesting. I don't find that easier to read. For example, in the second to last measure there are two eighth notes beamed together for the syllable "Ky". The way they are beamed together makes it seem that it starts on a downbeat. At first glance this would make the rhythm much less clear for me, especially after those broken 16th notes.


Seems to be a variation on the eight/quarter/eighth syncopations that are prevalent.


----------



## Morodiene (May 5, 2017)

resound said:


> Interesting. I don't find that easier to read. For example, in the second to last measure there are two eighth notes beamed together for the syllable "Ky". The way they are beamed together makes it seem that it starts on a downbeat. At first glance this would make the rhythm much less clear for me, especially after those broken 16th notes.


I'm not sure I see it as a downbeat, especially with the understanding that the beaming is for syllables. Musically when you sing it, it doesn't feel like a down beat, but definitely feels like the start of a new phrase after the long melisma and most likely a breath.


----------



## resound (May 5, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> I'm not sure I see it as a downbeat, especially with the understanding that the beaming is for syllables. Musically when you sing it, it doesn't feel like a down beat, but definitely feels like the start of a new phrase after the long melisma and most likely a breath.


Obviously it's not a downbeat and given time to look at it the rhythm is not complicated, but I am talking about from a sight reading perspective. We are trained to see those quarter note groupings, so at first glance that measure looks confusing. If that music were placed in front of me and I had to sight read it on the spot, it would throw me off.


----------



## JJP (May 5, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> Could it be they chose to do this due to the polyphonic nature of the music? My piece is a fugue, by the way, but this is the only movement of the work that is polyphonic, so I don't know if it would be confusing to not be consistent throughout the work.



This is the old style of beaming where notes are only beamed if they are part of a melisma. Otherwise each syllable is flagged. You can see how the beaming concept breaks down with 16th notes and the need to break the beams into half bars for clarity.

Today we use slurs so that the beaming can properly reflect the meter and rhythm. Most performers prefer the modern way of notating with slurs because it's much easier to sight read. They can simultaneously see both the melismas and the rhythms.

Look at bar 2 in the alto. A quick glance doesn't immediately lead you to understand that the phrase lands on beat 3. The same bar in the tenor is immediately clear because of the beaming without needing to quickly count it out. (You will probably quickly count the alto in your head even if you don't realize you're doing it.)

Likewise, the spacing difficulty in bar 4 of the alto is exacerbated by the breaking of the beam within beat 2. It requires you to pause for a moment and think about what is there. If sight-reading, that pause probably just took the performance down a notch in terms of accuracy of pitch or rhythm.

Good sight readers read shapes (melodic and rhythmic), spacing, and patterns. They don't read individually note to note, just as you are reading the shapes of words in this post and not letter to letter. That means we must be very careful of "This looks better, but I don't know why." That road leads to inconsistent notation problems because it can upset the usual appearance of the notated musical "words" or phrases.

If you're going to digress from current standard practices, be deliberate and have a very specific reason that will be clear to the performers without need for explanation. Consistency plays a very important role for performers in understanding what is intended so that they can absorb larger chunks of music at a glance.


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> Bach's B Minor published by Barenreiter in 1955



Agree with JJP -- unnecessarily hard to sight read. 

Coincidentally, we are singing Haydn's "Creation," also published by Barenreiter, with the same style of breaking the barring where there is a new word or syllable. It is much harder to read than necessary, especially as our conductor is taking many passages at break-neck speed.

There are still publishers notating this way. I would never use that style of notation for a session.


----------



## Morodiene (May 6, 2017)

Chances are this won't be sightread by a professional choir, but by a community choir. So I really want it to be as simple as possible


----------

