question about double-augmentation dotted notes
I seem to recall that double-dots are discouraged in contemporary engraving practice. If that's the case, what would be the best way of indicating the note duration? Would it be a single dotted note tied to a shorter note (quarter..=quarter.+sixteenth) or no dots at all (quarter..=quarter+eighth+sixteenth)?
Or would it depend somehow on context? I'm transcribing a piece which has many such; but in a lot of cases it seems that the double-dot is easier to read than a series of tied notes.
Thanks,
Comments
I don't know that there is a whole lot of consensus on this. Taking the specific case of the double dotted half note in 4/4 time (a pretty common rhythm in my world), one editor I have worked with has a rule that since you're going need a tie anyhow (assuming you don't just use the double dot), you might as well break it up in a way that exposes beat three, so they use a half note tied to a dotted quarter. But subjectively, I find I prefer a dotted half tied to a an eighth. If push came to shove, I might say the advantage is that this makes the actual subdivision of beat four more clear, but really, it's just a gut feel. And other editors clearly prefer this approach for whatever reason.
I doubt many would prefer no dots at all, though - that's too many ties.
In reply to I don't know that there is a by Marc Sabatella
Attached is the score of concern for me. (The piece is not finished, so no criticisms please!)
You can see that there are double-dotted eighth notes all over the place. Realistically, I can't think of a way of replacing the double-dots that makes the rhythm more clear instead of less. Every alternative just throws more black onto the page.
In reply to Attached is the score of by marty strasinger
Beams complicate things for sure. I could easily imagine that being a rule worth adopting: don't use double dots for quarters or above, but go ahead for shorter notes, to avoid making beaming more complex than needed.
In reply to Beams complicate things for by Marc Sabatella
I agree. Just as a note I personally prefer the dot on the second note for non-beamed notes.
In reply to I agree. Just as a note I by mike320
Marc & mike320,
As always, your advice is very much appreciated.
In reply to Marc & mike320, As always, by marty strasinger
Marc & Mikes is completely right!
I want to add little on it:
Notation should not be more complicated than necessary.
We do not have to write every nuance/timing, to the very finest detail. (Notation isn't like midi editing programs event list)
There's gotta be some freedom left to player/conductor.
Some visual examples (Marc & Mike explained already) :
In reply to Marc & Mikes is completely by Ziya Mete Demircan
One thing, though - by showing a rest rather than a note at the end of the measure, that kind of changes things. For instance, the second example on the first line where you say "No!" looks clearly wrong with a rest, but it's actually quite common if that is replaced by a note, as I observed earlier. And the fourth example with the whole note and articulation marking isn't close to the same thing, because it doesn't allow for another note at all. Same with the last line: your second example looks obviously wrong with a rest.
For example:
In reply to One thing, though - by by Marc Sabatella
In the score that I attached previously, does anyone see a reasonable alternative to the numerous double-dotted 8th notes?
In reply to In the score that I attached by marty strasinger
Beamed (8th) notes look better with double dots though I have seen various tie schemes in the past. The beams and ties tend to get confusing to look at at the same time.
In reply to One thing, though - by by Marc Sabatella
Yes Marc, you are right.
My examples are about the notes, that contain the rests in the last part;
about being more readable,
and about making it simpler.