Do I always try to get rid of rests?
OK, please forgive another simple music theory question, but ...
When notating a song, I can enter the notes specific to the timing in a measure, and use rests to show where notes skip. For example, here is a short simple example:
Note the 2 rests are visible.
However, I can remove those rests by changing the notes to this:
I realize there may not be a hard and fast rule, but what does music theory state I should do ... example A or example B?
Thanks as always for your advice.
Frank
Comments
Music theory says nothing about this. If you want the notes to be played for a certain duration write them with that duration. It's up to you as composer/arranger to decide what sound you want and up to the player to interpret that from what you write.
In reply to Music theory says nothing… by SteveBlower
Indeed. This question has nothing to do with music theory.
As mentioned by others, this isn't about theory but just about how long you want those notes held. That's something only you can answer. Obviously the pedal makes it so it doesn't actually matter. Which suggests, notating the rests is probably a mistake and likely to confuse people, because there won't be a way to actually get the silence there since the pedal is down. But that's really up to you to decide.
In reply to As mentioned by others, this… by Marc Sabatella
AH! I had not realized that the dot holds the note longer and is NOT the same as a rest. As you hinted, I did not notice any difference between the two specifically because this was a piano staff and the pedal was indeed down. Both sounded exactly the same. I now know that in another instrument with no pedal, a dot vs a rest does sound different and controls the length of the note.
Thanks to everyone for the lesson.
Frank
It is assumed that at the 4/4 time signature, there is an imaginary line dividing the measure in half. That's why we need to clearly see the starting point of the 3rd beat (a few variants of syncope are sometimes excluded, which cover the whole measure). From this point of view, the 3rd beat on the left hand is not clear in both writings.
![example-2.png]( "example-2.png")
I prefer the following form.
In reply to The important thing is… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Thanks for the clarification. I understand and I can do this consistently, if this is the standard convention. Would the other posters agree?
In reply to Thanks for the clarification… by fsgregs
Absolutely; it's a standard rule of music notation. Although I'd make the same comment here I made earlier - having a rest really doesn't make sense given the pedal is down and would likely just confuse people. So instead, you should tie across the imaginary middle-of-measure line. Quarter note on 2 tied to eighth on and-of-3.
In reply to Absolutely; it's a standard… by Marc Sabatella
The rest there shows that the left hand will not press any key, whether the pedal is pressed or not :)
In my personal opinion: in this notation the rest is easier to read and more effortless (1), while the other one is more difficult to read and calculate because it contains another note and a tie (it is dense) (2). But this is a personal preference. Others may find the tie-in more readable.
In reply to The rest there shows that… by Ziya Mete Demircan
I think that much of my problem is that I'm not a piano player. Reading music on a piano is different. Those of you that are primarily keyboard players probably won't understand that statement. To me neither of these examples seems efficient.
In reply to I think that much of my… by bobjp
+1
In reply to I think that much of my… by bobjp
Then you need to give an example that you think is efficient.
In reply to Then you need to give an… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Here's one of my examples. Bar 33 is, (I think), correctly notated but bar 34 is more efficient and, for me at least, easier to read. I have beat 'notches' along the bottom stave line to show the beats.
I will use the format in bar 33 because this is correct. Hopefully with practise I will find it easier.
(bobjp's situation may be entirely different)
In reply to Here's one of my examples… by yonah_ag
Actually, no, neither are notated correctly. Bar 33 shows beat three, yes, but the beaming is completely wrong aside from that, thus defeating the pattern recognition. Beaming in this context (sixteenth note subdivisions present) needs to show each beat clearly. But Bar 34 is definitely far worse. You can read it because you already know the rhythm and/or because you spend the extra time to work out the math. But when it comes to pattern recognition, it's an absolute mess - not a single note after the second is on the beat that the beamingmakes it appear to be on. Probably no one on the planet would sight-read that correctly.
Correct notation would be the one given by default in MuseScore:
As you can see, not just beat 3, but each beat is clearly indicated. Anyone musician even moderately skilled at reading would get this perfectly the first time at pretty much any tempo.
In reply to Actually, no, neither are… by Marc Sabatella
Oh dear! Looks like I get an F on this one - yet again.
I still read by note length rather than by rhythm which means no maths required for 34 but required for 33. Already knowing the note length probably helps too.
I have clearly messed up 33! I think that I changed note lengths around until the notes sounded the same length as on the YouTube video but by then I had messed up the beaming. I'll redo this measure and let MS sort it out.
Edit: Yes, I can see how the beats are much clearer in your version but I end up doing maths to figure out the note lengths.
In reply to Oh dear! Looks like I get an… by yonah_ag
Well, maybe not an "F" on that one - it's better than 34 by a mile! - but perhaps a "C-" :-). To fix it, just select and use Tools / Regroup Rhythms.
Technically speaking, you indeed wouldn't need to actually add the note lengths in order to play measure 34 correctly, if you play each and every note exactly perfectly, on the proper beat and with the proper length, so the next note comes in exactly at the right time as well. But get even one note wrong and the entire rest of the measure is wrong. In fact, unless you are at least keeping track of where beat 1 and resetting your playing correctly for the start of each measure (ie, ignoring the length of the last note of a measure to make sure the next measure starts on time), you'd almost certainly play the entire rest of the piece wrong after any single mistake. And the mistakes would compound to the point that by the time you finished you'd almost certainly be many beats, perhaps even meany measures, off.
That's not a statement about you personally, by the way - I submit that it's virtually impossible that anyone would succeed regularly at measures like 34 when sight-reading, no matter what method they attempted to use.
Of course, since you would have literally no idea where any of those notes fell with respect to the beat, you'd also have no way of knowing if you were it right or not, or how to get back on track even if you somehow became aware you were wrong. And that's the other advantage of the correct notation and taking advantage of pattern recognition rather than note lengths only - it's completely self-correcting. When you are able to take advantage of the correct notation to identify the patterns, an error on any one beat (or in any one half-measure) does not need to impact any other beat or half-measure. You know immediately if you've made a mistake, and it won't matter because and you are then still in position to get the next phrase right.
Anyhow, if you're interested in getting good at sight-reading, definitely you need to stop thinking about reading durations ine at a time and instead start thinking about what beat each note starts on. And if you have any doubts about what I'm saying here, I'm happy to do an experiment where you and an experienced sight-reader both try to read the same rhythms - yours notated as you prefer, the other's notated correctly - and compare how well you both do. I think you'd be amazed at just how much better it is possible to get at sight-reading just by using an approach that is designed for success. I've got all the tools I'd need to set this up, and I think it could be quite informative to a wider audience, if you're interested.
In reply to Well, maybe not an "F" on… by Marc Sabatella
I have no doubts about what you are saying and I do want to learn how to read, (and write!), rhythms correctly. Maybe I can find an Android app for some rhythm training. I just don't think in rhythm patterns at all at the moment.
(Thanks for the C- )
In reply to Well, maybe not an "F" on… by Marc Sabatella
I'm fixing up the rest of the score manually, (and checking with regroup), so that I get practise. I think that I'm getting the idea. In this 4/4 score a note duration should not cross a beat but should stop and be tied to a note at the start of the next beat, and each note group within the bar should add up to a quarter note.
In reply to I'm fixing up the rest of… by yonah_ag
That's actually going a bit too far - you don't have to show every beat unless there are sixteenth note subdivisions present. Otherwise, you only need to show beat three. There's more to it than that, but those handouts do a decent of summarizing the much more complete info in my course.
In reply to Here's one of my examples… by yonah_ag
BTW, your "beat notches" are not standard, so few musicians would understand what they are for. But even with them, it still doesn't convey the meaning nearly as clearly as the correct notation. Consider your notch for beat three. There is a sixteenth note that comes in after that, but how much after - on the "e", "&", or "a"? Or maybe even on beat 4, as the beaming seems to suggest (beams rarely start anywhere but on a beat in correctly notated music)? Entirely non-obvious without doing the complete math starting at the beginning of the measure, and if you're off anywhere, you are then off for the entire rest of the measure. And since no one has ever seen that pattern before in their lives, there is zero chance of recognizing it, and thus essentially no chance of anyone reliably getting it right the first time while sight-reading.
Whereas with the correct notation, beat three is - as are virtually all other beats (not including tuplets) in virtually every piece of music ever - very clearly one of the eight basic patterns (eighth, two sixteenths) that we've all seen and played thousands of times. We have played that pattern so often we don't have to think about it for even a fraction of a second. That sixteenth is obviously on the and of the beat because that's where it has been every time we've played that pattern. This is plainly apparent from the pattern recognition, no math required, and anyone can play that beat perfectly the first time.
In reply to BTW, you "beat notches" are… by Marc Sabatella
I'll dump the notches and try to fix the rhythms. I'm a bit of an old dog trying to learn new tricks, having come to written music aged 50+, and I'm clearly struggling in this area. 🥴
In reply to BTW, you "beat notches" are… by Marc Sabatella
I should review this set which has 2 of your scores explaining rhythms:
https://musescore.com/user/28842914/sets/5115261
In reply to I think that much of my… by bobjp
It's not a piano versus other instruments, nor is it a question of what is most efficient to write or is the most efficient use of ink. It's simply a matter of writing in a way that allows the greatest number of musicians to be able to read and play it correctly on sight. When it comes to sight-reading, pattern recognition is king. Most people have never seen a dotted quarter / eighth pattern starting on beat two of a 4/4 measure, not even once in their entire lives, because publishers would not do that. And if you've literally never once in your entire life seen a pattern before, then even if it's possible to count it out and arrive at the correct answer, it's going to take a fraction of a second longer to process, and that's a fraction of a section you could have been spending reading ahead, getting fingers into position, contemplating articulation and dynamics, or doing any of the other things that make for successful sight-reading.
That exact same pattern written for guitar or bassoon or flute would have the same flaw. Most musicians have literally never even once in their entire lives seen that pattern. Yes, one can take the extra time to count it out, but you're not supposed to have to do that. Normally, you can just recognize the pattern and move on, and that's what enables people to be able to sight-read well, on any instrument.
In reply to The rest there shows that… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Indeed, my comment wasn't about readability per see, but about the original question about the difference between long note vs short note followed by rest. Normally that's just a matter of whether you want there to be silence or not. but in the case of pedal, it seems a strange thing.
So really, my question would be, why notate the pedal at all? Most piano music has no pedal markings - it's added at the discretion of the player. If there is special reason to include visible pedal marking (invisible ones are sufficient for playback), then if you want the silence, I'd suggest notating a pedal change there.
In reply to Thanks for the clarification… by fsgregs
To me, the location of beat three in the left hand is very clear because it was it was just played with the right hand. This forum is the only place I've ever heard of needing to notate where beat three in a four beat measure is. It is supposed to make site reading easier. Tied to this, It is also the only place I've seen mention of beat one and three are in some way accented. I suppose this might be true in a march or some kind of dance. But in a choral or flowing melody? Assumed, maybe. But a rule?
In reply to To me, the location of beat… by bobjp
Definitely it's not just here you would learn the rule about showing beat three - it's pretty much universal and has been for centuries. Here's but one reference:
https://www.musicnotes.com/now/musictheory/note-beaming-and-grouping-in…
But one typically doesn't learn this until one studies composition or writing music - it's rarely emphasized when learning to read it. So it's pretty common that resources designed to teach you how to read music wouldn't mention it, because it only becomes relevant when trying to write it. And yet, that's not really true - being aware of this does greatly simplify sight-reading, because it's the key to understanding there are really only eight rhythmic patterns to learn and virtually all rhythms can be seen in terms of these.
As for "accenting* beat one or three, this indeed is not really a thing in general. Sure, in certain styles there might be subtle accents on the downbeat, occasionally also on other beats, but it's extremely style-specific, and it's almost always the case that if you go out of way to do this, you're almost certainly overdoing. It's just something that would normally happen naturally if you're really familiar with the style in question. Kind of like accenting offbeats in jazz.
In reply to Definitely it's not just… by Marc Sabatella
I suppose that it is possible that I forgot this from my theory and composition classes. Who knows.
Though the idea that if writing a certain way is to make reading easier, why wouldn't it be taught to look for it while learning to read music? I find that a dotted quarter followed by a two tied eights takes me longer to process More notes to have to read. And I find that if I have to take the extra time and space to write this way....I probably won't. OTOH, we seem to only care about what is fast and easy. As though fast and easy = better. Always.
Remember that some of the best music ever written was done slowly and painstakingly by hand, on paper. Often in ink. So they had to think about every note. No fillers.
It seems like composers think that musicians are not smart enough to read music "properly" written or not. The idea of a centuries old concept taught only to composers might hold water on the surface. But I can't see how deep it goes. I was taught composition by the dean of the school of music of the university I attended. He was also a mathematician. You would think such a person would have mentioned seeing beat three. His big interest was 12 tone music. Which is a difficult form of composition. So he was much more interested in how the various iterations of the 12 note string could be made to work together to make a meaningful composition. And by extension, how to make any form we used into meaningful music.
I keep meaning to go back to my college books to verify. Not that I don't trust a website that doesn't site any sources for what they write.
In reply to I suppose that it is… by bobjp
It's a very good question why many teachers don't point out this useful fact about music notation, but perhaps many of them were never taught it. But certainly at least some teachers do cover this, as it does simplify the process. The more you can recognize patterns in music, the easier it is to sight-read, and that's why this and similar rules of notation exist. These are a well-established facts, with not even the slightest bit of doubt or debtate in the literature about this. This is not some obscure rule mentioned by only one or two books. Literally every single source on the subject of correct music notation discusses this.
As for why it's a thing, it's not a question of anyone thinking musicians are not "smart" enough to read incorrectly written music; it's just a question of what is easiest to read and leads to the fewest errors. Yes, of course, given sufficient time, people are smart enough to be able do the math to calculate exactly what beat each note falls on in an incorrectly notated passage. But it takes much longer and thus interferes greatly with sight-reading. And yes, what's easier to read is better, always. Why on earth wouldn't it be?
Similarly, eye kann right a cent ants lyke this and ewe kann still reed itt, butt itz much slower.
We read words by recognizing patterns, not by phonetically figuring out every sound. Similarly, we read rhythms by recognizing patterns, not by adding durations of every single note.
In reply to It's a very good question… by Marc Sabatella
WOW! WOW! I did not mean to start something here so controversial or confusing. Now, things have gotten out of hand, in a way. Without formal training in music notation or speed reading, whenever I enter a note and/or a rest, I have to pay close attention to"proper" (1) Beat notation, (2) Rhythm notation, (3) Note timing, duration, holds and rests, (4) when to use beaming, (5) when to use dots, (6) when to use ties, (7) rules about never dotting the 2nd beat, (8) using or not using pedal marks with other rests, (9) proper speed-reading interpretation, etc. While I cannot disagree that all of this makes for "proper" music notation in a score, it is very obvious to me that to do this properly, I need at least a week's training in the proper use of rests, and all the other stuff. So ... is there a video or section of an online course for dummies like me (a 74 yr old untrained, uncoached novice in music notation) to learn all this? Does MuseScore or YouTube tutorials cover it in detail, step by step? Do all music teachers agree on all of this, or is there disagreement on some points?
Your recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance
Frank
In reply to WOW! WOW! I did not mean… by fsgregs
The 2 scores, (from Marc), in this set are my starting point but I'm sure that you will get some additional pointers from other users. https://musescore.com/user/28842914/sets/5115261
Happy Learning!
In reply to WOW! WOW! I did not mean… by fsgregs
It's actually not controversial in the least. There is virtually unanimous agreement from all professional music educators, composers, editors, etc on all of these basic points about the notation of rhythm. But it does tend to cause some confusion indeed when people first learn to write music correctly after having read it for a while and never realized there was more to it than meets the eye.
Anyhow, yes, in order to create music that others can read well, you do indeed need to learn proper notation techniques. That includes things like how to spell pitches (e.g, when to call something "C#" versus "Db") and also how to spell rhythms (e.g., when to use a dotted quarter versus quarter tied to eighth, or how to group beamed notes). Plus things like when and how to use multiple voices, and much more.
And yes, it's kind of a lot to learn. just like writing English involves learning a lot of spelling and grammar. And just like learning Engish doesn't happen in only a week, nor does learning everything to understand you need about music notation. But on the other hand, unlike English, it shouldn't take years either. You can probably learn what you need in a matter of a few weeks.
Anyhow, the handouts on rhythm mentioned here are from my online course Basic Music Theory. It's not a course on notation per see but does cover it along the way to actually discussing theory. The full course is at:
https://school.masteringmusescore.com/p/basic-theory
Note that while this course covers pretty much anything you need to know about notation, it's only a very very beginning course in theory. It covers the things pretty much any musician would benefit from knowing about scales, intervals, and chord construction, but doesn't really teach you about how to actually use this information to create music. My more advanced courses on harmony and on counterpoint then go from there to actually creating effective chord progressions, polyphony, etc.
BTW, the point about using rests versus pedals isn't a "rule", it's actually something I've never thought about for a moment before. it's just that common sense suggests it is kind of awkward, as there is no way to truly have a rest with the pedal down. You don't have to have previously been taught that, you just need to have the insight to think about it for a moment and realize it's true, and then scratch your head wondering what that means in practice. To be honest, I have no idea if most editors would go out of their way to avoid rests in passages notated with pedal or not. It's just something that came up because you specifically asked about the rest there, and I noticed the pedal, and it seemed relevant to the answer.
In reply to It's actually not… by Marc Sabatella
OK Marc. You are very kind to take the time to write such good summaries. Thanks. I probably will sign up for at least some of your course, if not all of it ... soon.
Now, here is a question I created in MuseScore to kind of emphasize my quandary"
Can you help me more here? Is this simply convention in music, or opinion, or ...?
In reply to OK Marc. You are very kind… by fsgregs
Your first two measures are indeed virtually unreadable. You might be able to tap along after taking the time to figure out and write in the counts, but sight-reading at tempo you'd make errors. Virtually guaranteed. People don't count every eighth note in a measure when sight reading, they count beats, or more often, groups of two beats. Otherwise you could only play slow tempos.
Measures 3 & 4 are infinitely better, for the reason i have clearly explained. There are only eight rhythmic patterns in the world (slight exaggeration but throw enough caveats on it, and it's true). Once one realizes this, you can easily sight any rhythm at any tempo perfectly, no worries about making mistakes or getting lost. Your measures 1 & 2 contain none of the eighth patterns, because they are notated completely wrong. Measures 3 & 4 are 8nstantly recognizable to anyone familiar with music notation as being composed of those eighth patterns and nothing else. The first two measures require you to laboriously write in coutns and of attempt to "count" at tempo while sight reading (and by the way, also trying to get the right pitch, find the notes on your instrument, watch the conductor, etc). Ther second two measure juup right off the page as being identical to every single other measure yuou've ever played in your lie. no comparison whatsoever. The first two are guarantee train wreck in sight reading, the second two are guaranteed success.
In reply to OK Marc. You are very kind… by fsgregs
Here's a more succinct way of putting it:
In your measures 1 & 2, there is not a single sequence of three notes in a row that any musician has ever seen before in their entire lives. Literally not a single three-note sequence can be found in any piece of published music. It's like you've invented an entirely new language - asking people to read a rhythm they have literally never seen in their entire life.
Whereas measure 3-4, looks at each of the halves of each of the measures and they are all exactly one of the eight basic patterns that all music is made of. Each one of those half measures we have all seen and played countless thousands of times before.
It's a night and day difference between a notation that not a single person in the entire history of humanity has seen before, and a notation that every single musician alive has seen and played thousands of times before.
In reply to OK Marc. You are very kind… by fsgregs
@ fsgregs FWIW I was able to read your first two measures without problem. I admit to being a poor sight reader. But it didn't matter. To say that they are unreadable, and that no musician that ever lived has ever seen them, seems a stretch.
In reply to @ fsgregs FWIW I was able to… by bobjp
It's not that it cannot be read at all - of course they can. But can they be accurately read, on sight, the very first time, at tempo, while dealing with everything else that needs to happen in order to sight read in a performance situation? If you claim you can do that as well as someone reading from the correct version, then I will extend the same offer to you: let me put you to the test. I'll put together a passage of music written correctly and an equivalent version written incorrectly and have you sight read the incorrect version live on camera during one of my upcoming video streams. We'll compare the result to someone reading the correct version.
But as for whether anyone has ever seen an example like those first two, I'll let you prove me wrong. Find one single example in published music, and I'll take it back. Then tell me the number of pages of music you had to look at to find that one example, and I'll do the math amend it to say, "X% of people" have ever seen this before in their lives instead of saying no one.
In reply to It's not that cannot be read… by Marc Sabatella
Well, you've tempted me to look. Out of curiosity, would a half note spanning the middle two beats of a 4/4 count, or are we just talking beaming?
And for what it's worth, I am in agreement about anything going against this being rather hard to read. The only time I imagine I've seen an exception is for pieces where the beat pattern stops obeying the time signature for a bit. Though I still think they obey the rules on this one, at least in the primary voice...
In reply to It's not that cannot be read… by Marc Sabatella
Ah, I found an example. Godowsky's Studies on Chopan's Etudes, Study No. 5 (on Op. 10 No. 3), measures 33-34.
Notably, the time signature is 2/4.
In reply to Ah, I found an example… by LuuBluum
Indeed, when specifically trying to show a cross-rhythm, sometimes editors will deliberately shift the patterns.
In reply to Indeed, when specifically… by Marc Sabatella
Yep. It's pretty much the only acceptable case that I can think for this sort of thing.
In reply to OK Marc. You are very kind… by fsgregs
@fsgregs
I have no trouble sight reading and playing any of your measures because of my focus on note length rather than rhythm. I might not play each note correctly to the millisecond but a metronome tick on the first beat would keep me from losing time.
I probably wouldn't be as fast or accurate as a musician sight reading the correct notation but I would be much quicker than me decoding the correct notation.
However, that just confirms my wrong approach to sight reading and I'm taking steps to fix it, mainly because I want to be able to read scores which are written correctly, although I do also want to get it right on my own scores.
In reply to It's a very good question… by Marc Sabatella
A couple of things bother me.
![beat.png]( "beat.png")
I grabbed a random book off my shelf. This is a collection of songs for band or orchestra published by Theodore Presser. There are dozens of instances where beat three is not in any way notated. So I must assume that the rule only applies to syncopated rhythms.
Measures 1 and 4 are very easy for me to read. But I guess they need to be written like 2 and 5. Beat 4 of measure 2 now corrected, also. Both measures 2 and 5 seem more complicated to me. So I must assume that the rule only applies to complicated syncopations. I might agree with that.
About sight reading. It has been stated that notation needs to be written in a certain way because sight reading is paramount. Sure. Professionals in a recording session that have no rehearsal time, need to read the music correctly the first time. I get it. But I submit that the vast number of scores are not used this way. Of course things need to be notated in such a way as to be readable.
In reply to A couple of things bother me… by bobjp
Indeed, as I said, it's more complicated than to say beat three always needs to be shown, there are exceptions. The very simplest case of consistent quarter note syncopation is one of them, in music where that is common. The Afro-Cuban "clave" rhythm is another, in music where that is common. That's what is going on here.
Anyhow, if you don't care to have people read your music, you're obviously welcome to write it however you want. Use smiley faces instead of noteheads, make your stems zigzag, your beams curved, use a single a eleven-line staff instead of a grand staff, invent a new clef, write backwards and/or upside down, have a ball! But normally it is reasonable to assume that most people going to the trouble of notating their music actually want it to be easily readable.
In reply to Indeed, as I said, it's more… by Marc Sabatella
Here is a page of exceptions. True these are ridiculously simple examples. I think it would be pointless to write these any other way. But, I'm not the expert here. Could you actually say, on camera, that you couldn't sight read at tempo that first measure I posted. You speak about music in absolutes. Like it is written by and for robots. No musician has ever seen such and such a rhythm. Such and such is completely unreadable. No publisher has ever printed such and such. Anyone who disagrees is obviously not serious and is invited to write in upside down smiley faces. Really?
In reply to Here is a page of exceptions… by bobjp
Did you post the wrong page? That page doesn't show any exceptions at all, it shows the normal rules being followed. correctly. No exceptions present whatsoever.
Maybe you're thinking of the measure with the dotted half and two eighths? That's part of the rule - as I said, the full rule is more subtle than just "always show beat 3 if eighths are present". The rest of the rule points out that if one of the patterns allows for a note of a given duration to be placed on a given beat, it can remain there even if the rest of the measure is then subdivided further. So, since one of the eight basic patterns as it applies to full beats (no subdivision) is dotted half / quarter - with the dotted half on beat 1 -, that means a dotted half can be placed on beat 1 even if the rest of the measure is subdivided into eighths or sixteenths.
As for what you're asking me to say "on camera", there have been so many examples posted here I can't be sure which "first measure" you mean. But if it breaks the rules and isn't one of those well-known exceptions (e.g., consistent quarter note syncopation, clave rhythm), then it is absolutely positively a given that when sightreading at tempo in context, a correctly written version will be read much more successfully than an incorrectly written one.
So yes, I would say that on camera (and have many times). And I would be happy to demonstrate it by taking volunteers to put it to the test, just as I have done just about every year in the university classes I teach. Of the hundreds of students who have participated in these trials, never once has anyone successfully read one of the incorrectly written rhythms at tempo in context, whereas virtually everyone nails the correctly written versions.
I speak in strong statements to make a point - these principles really are virtually unanimously agreed upon and really are followed by virtually every publisher ever. Some people on this thread seem unaware of this, thinking that notation of rhythm is completely subjective and that there are no agreed upon rules or reasons to follow them. Pointing out how universal these concepts are is important in combatting that misconception. It's important that people realize I am not just expressing some personal opinion about what I happen to find easier. I am talking about the rules of music notation that every single music publisher known and follows.
Now, whether there exists somewhere in all of recorded history one publisher somewhere who made a mistake and actually engraved something like one of the examples here that broke the rules, you're right - I cannot say. So as I said, if you find an example of someone having made such an error, let me know, and I'll amend my statement according, to say that people have seen it only 0.0000001% of whatever percentage of the time. Whereas correctly notated music uses only those eight patterns, each of which you've seen thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands of times.
In reply to Here is a page of exceptions… by bobjp
The most common rhythm patterns based on common-time:
Each column is half the duration of the previous column.
In reply to The most common rhythm… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Re: Ziya Mete Demircan • Jan 4, 2022 - 19:13
Those are all nice and easy to read. It's really just when a note gets split into 2 tied notes, (because of the beat), that I trip up, as it's harder to see the duration at a glance.
In reply to A couple of things bother me… by bobjp
Re: bobjp • Jan 3, 2022 - 23:02
1 & 4 are easy, 2 & 5 need decoding, (I trip up on the ties), so at least I'm getting it wrong in good company!
What I have realised is that I read note-by-note rather than taking in a group of notes at a time
"Smiley faces" etc. would be like learning a new language and would make things worse. Using the accepted musical symbols and stave framework does at least mean we're talking in the same language, even if we're getting some of our grammar wrong.
In reply to 1 & 4 are easy, 2 & 5 need… by yonah_ag
The specific way in which one makes their music hard for people to read isn't the issue I was responding to. It was the idea that making music easily readable isn't necessarily a worthy goal to begin with. If you want to take that stance, fine, but then smileys and everything else I mentioned are fair game as well.
In reply to The specific way in which… by Marc Sabatella
Well, my incorrect rhythms have really just been grammar mistakes due to ignorance. I have no wish to produce scores that are difficult to read and I do think that readability is a worthy goal. I merely said that I find bobjp's 1&4 to be easier than 2&5. The fact that this is true does not mean that I am suggesting that it is better, let alone correct, (which I know it isn't), it just confirms that I am not alone in the use of such wrong notating.
Interestingly there seems to be an approach to learning which is based on assigning words to note lengths. Whilst this is aimed at children and beginners it does shows that it can be useful. I guess that with progress the transition to standard rhythm notation can be made.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=23908.0
In reply to Well, my incorrect rhythms… by yonah_ag
Indeed, as I said, I was specifically responding to a different post from someone else in which it was suggested that readability was not a worthy goal.
Anyhow, the problem with reading music according to note lengths only as opposed to understanding where each note falls relative to the beat is the same as with many of the various "crutches" that are sometimes used in learning. It allows you to get to a very minimal level of success in sufficiently simple examples pretty quickly, but it also prevents you from ever moving beyond that level until you learn better techniques. While you might be able to read simple children's music this way, it pretty much guarantees mistakes galore when sight-reading more complicated music at faster tempos, etc.
In particular, you might come close to the right relative lengths of notes in some or even "most" cases, but without a clear sense of where each note falls relative to the beat, you will be likely to get off in complex measures by playing some note a little too short or a little too long. And when that inevitably happens, the fact that you aren't cognizant of the correct time position of the notes means you will stay off until something else happens to trigger you to reset. And the fact that you aren't recognizing the patterns that are being provided to you within the measure means you won't be able to reset until the downbeat next measure finally arrives. That's a lot of measures messed up badly, with one wrong note completely screwing up the rest of the measure.
So the point of approaches based on beat and patterns rather than on duration alone is to a) greatly reduce the likelihood of mistakes, b) make it instantly obvious when you've made a mistake so you can correct it, and c) give you multiple opportunities per measure to get back on track. Fewer measures messed up to begin with, and fewer wrong notes within the measures that are messed up.
Crutches like duration-based mnemonics are fine for initially introducing someone to the idea of rhythm, but it's pretty important to move beyond that if one wants to actually get good at it.
In reply to Indeed, as I said, I was… by Marc Sabatella
That makes sense. I get the crutch analogy.
I really struggle with sight reading tied notes. For example, when two eighth notes are tied across a beat do you automatically see them as a single quarter note or do you somehow just follow the rhythm pattern and end up playing them as a quarter? Do you 'hear' the rhythm in your head?
In reply to That makes sense. I really… by yonah_ag
The most important thing to read is when a note starts. So for two eighths tied over a beat think of it starting on the "and" before the beat. If you tap your foot on the beats, the note starts when your foot is up, then your foot comes down while the note continues and you are looking at the next note starting point. Unless there is a rest in between, the note you are playing stops where that next note starts.
In reply to The most important thing to… by SteveBlower
I understand what you mean but it's a paradigm shift to move from note lengths to start position so this is going to take quite some practise.
In reply to I understand what you mean… by yonah_ag
Just keep in mind, there are only eight rhythms, all you really need to know is what they each sound like. It's rarely all that important to even have to think about the start position of any note but the first of each pattern - beat one and beat three. After al, I know exactly what dotted quarter / eighth sounds like, as I've played it perhaps millions of times by now. Same with quarter / two eighths, or eighth / quarter /eighth. If I start it in the right place - either one beat one or beat three - how could I possibly mess it up? I've been playing those same eight patterns since I was five years old.
In reply to Just keep in mind, there are… by Marc Sabatella
Our posts crossed: You have just answered my question on learning the patterns.
In reply to That makes sense. I really… by yonah_ag
What Steve says, absolutely. If you focus on when each note (or rest) starts, the lengths take care of themselves.
Consider, the length may not even be relevant - consider clapping, or percussion, or harp, or guitar for that matter. For the most part, the start beat of the note is all that matters, since the duration of the note is pre-determined by how hard you play it at the start. Of course, even for cymbals, harp, and guitar, you have the option of stopping the sound. but still, no need to calculate the duration of the note - you just need to know on what beat to stop it, and that's determined by the next note or rest.
As for hearing rhythms, once you realize there are only eight rhythmic patterns and everything is built from them, then yes, of course one can easily hear any rhythm in one's head, because it's always those same eight rhythms, over and over.
In reply to What Steve says, absolutely… by Marc Sabatella
So, just to clarify my understanding, the fact that a quarter-note-followed-by-an-eighth-note may be shown as two-tied-eighth-notes-followed-by-the-eighth-note, (because of beat position), does not change the rhythmic pattern: it just needs the tied eighths to be written correctly?
Therefore learning the basic beat patterns will be very helpful.
In reply to So, just to clarify my… by yonah_ag
Quarter note followed by an eighth note is not a full pattern, so your question doesn't make sense to me. It's either quarter followed by two eighths, or the quarter * eighth also preceded by an eighth. If there happens be an eighth at the end of one pattern tied into an eighth at the start of a different pattern, and that second eighth happens to be followed by another eighth, that's nice, but you're still looking at but a portion of two totally separate patterns, not a single pattern. Ties pretty much always indicate you're looking at separate patterns, and the tied-into note is what starts the second pattern.
In reply to Quarter note followed by an… by Marc Sabatella
Duh! Of course. I'm still trying to count the tied-to note as part of the previous pattern.
I'm looking at | ¼ ¼ ¼ ⅛ ⅛ | ⅛ ... | where the last ⅛ of bar 1 is tied to the first ⅛ of bar 2 - but I'm mentally trying to squeeze the tied-to note into the fourth pattern, (because I'm trying to make the length a quarter), but it can't fit into the fourth pattern: it's the start of the first pattern of the next bar.
So, each pattern has to be a single beat? No less, no more but just 1 beat? That's why there can be such a low number of different patterns in a 4/4 bar - I think!
On crossing the barline and seeing another note I, wrongly, want to pluck the string again whereas I just need to hold the note until the "and".
In reply to Duh! Of course. I'm still… by yonah_ag
No, each pattern isn't a single beat. look at the handout. As the very first section shows, when no eighth note subdivisions are involved - only whole numbers of beats - the whole measure is the pattern in 4/4. And if there are eighths but no sixteenth, the half-measure is the pattern. Only when sixteenth are involved do you need to look at individual beats.
And yes, you need to see a tie as just a marker that the beat happens and you simply continue to hold. It's an important confirmation that yes, the beat happened and you don't need to move, and also to show you exactly how much later you do need to move.
In reply to No, each pattern isn't a… by Marc Sabatella
Re: Marc Sabatella • Jan 5, 2022 - 02:13
No, each pattern isn't a single beat
To clarify, I meant when looking at notes less than a quarter. So it would not be valid in 4/4 time to have a pattern of three eighth notes because this would be more than 1 beat. The 3rd eighth note would have to be part of the next pattern.
For quarter notes and above the patterns clearly need to be at least 1 beat but, presumably, must still be a whole number of beats.
The 4/4 pattern | dotted-quarter, dotted-quarter, quarter | and its variants are not valid even though they represent a whole number of beats. (Would 2 dotted quarters be a valid pattern in 3/4 time?)
In reply to Re: Marc Sabatella • Jan 5,… by yonah_ag
No, it's just about notes less than a quarter. As I have explained, and as the handout you linked to clearly shows, if there are eighths but no sixteenths, the patterns are seen in groups of two beats. Three eighths can absolutely be part of one pattern - the pattern consisting of four eighths. Those three eighths might be the first three or last three.
As the handout also shows, in 3/4, the norm is to break the measure into 2+1, or occasionally 1+2. In a jazz setting specifically, the dotted quarter - dotted quarter rhythm is common enough to be easily recognized and some publishers in that genre will notate it as such. That's one of those subjective special exceptions like the ones discussed earlier,
In reply to No, it's just about notes… by Marc Sabatella
Re: Marc Sabatella • Jan 6, 2022 - 03:51
No, it's just about notes less than a quarter
You must feel like you're "pulling teeth": I've gone back to the handouts! On the section about compound meter you refer to foreground beats and background beats. How are these defined?
In reply to Re: Marc Sabatella • Jan 6,… by yonah_ag
In fact, there is one more thing that can help: If you can recognize the time signature when you check any measure in the score (without having to check the time signature at the beginning of the piece), the rhythms are written correctly.
In the example below, you won't be able to recognize the 4/4 time signature in the measures on the left, but you will in the right ones.
Here is an example of how the same durations look in different time signatures.
In reply to In fact, there is one more… by Ziya Mete Demircan
The ?/? measures on the left are by far the most obvious 4/4 to me. The others take more working out because there are more notes plus ties.
The ?/? versions are instantly playable but the right-hand versions are tricky.
In reply to The ?/? measures are the… by yonah_ag
The point in this example is this: It is clear that those on the left do not indicate that they are in the 4/4 time signature. Because grouping of notes is not correct.
The second example below shows how to group the same durations in another time signature.
In both groupings here, the basic beats (shown in parentheses) of the 4/4 time signature and the 8/8 time signature are taken into account.
For 4/4: (S)trong, Weak, (s)trong, weak
For 8/8 (3, 3, 2): (S), x, x; (W), x, x; (w) x
In reply to The point in this example is… by Ziya Mete Demircan
My reply was that those on the left, (with incorrect grouping), are completely clear and easy to play, whilst those on the right, (correctly grouped), are more difficult.
I clearly need to rewire this concept in my brain.
In reply to My reply was that those on… by yonah_ag
Easy to try to play, but I still maintain it's virtually guaranteed you will make mistakes trying to sightread those examples at tempo, and that you probably won't even realize you are making those mistakes, because you have no frame of reference for which notes should be on the beat and which should be off.
But the point here wasn't about playability, it's about recognition of the time signature. The only way to tell the left examples were 4/4 is to actually calculate and add the note lengths - something you've said before you don't do. Just looking at the measure (eg, in the first few milliseconds after seeing it for the first time), it isn't instantly obviously that it's in 4/4 at all. There is no way to figure this out without doing the math. Whereas the right-hand examples do make this plainly obvious at first sight, no math required - just pattern recognition.
In reply to Easy to try to play, but I… by Marc Sabatella
Even for 4/4 checking the left-hand versions are quicker but this must be because I don't know the standard patterns yet. Not quite sure why I should even care what the time signature is. It may as well have no time sig. as I would play it just the same. I guess that the barlines are a useful frame of reference for where you are in the score so it could be tricky without them.
(I don't normally do the math as there's no need, but for these examples I did in order to check the number of beats.)
Why not just have note lengths and barlines? The time sig could be left to vary according to the number of beats I wanted in each bar. This would stop the need for tying notes across barlines.
In reply to Even for 4/4 checking the… by yonah_ag
Indeed, I would agree that recognizing the time signature isn't crucially important, I just wanted to clarify the point being made here, since your responses were not addressing it.
Anyhow, playing a note exactly the same regardless of what beat it is on or what time signature is in - that's actually not a good thing. Notes often should be played differently depending on where they fall relative to the beat and measure. In many jazz and pop styles, for example, swing eighths depend on knowing which notes are on and off the beat. In many classical styles, there would be expected to be a very slight emphasis of the notes on the beat, except for syncopated notes that get a slight accent even though they are off the beat. It's a subtle thing that's easy to overdo if you try doing it explicitly by doing the math then writing in the accents, but it happens completely naturally when reading the rhythms in a way that recognizes the beat.
I'm also guessing you've never played in an ensemble before and tried to follow a director as the conduct tempo changes by marking the beat. Or had a rehearsal director say things like "that note everyone has on the & of 3, let's play it a little shorter" or "let me hear everyone who has a G on beat 4" or any of the other common things that happen in rehearsal. Effective reading is not just about how you play in your practice room, it's about how you function when trying to synchronize with other musicians.
So actually, even aside from the almost inevitable rhythmic errors that will occur when reading note lengths only without respect to knowing where you are with respect to the beat, you end up with other objectively worse results too.
In reply to Easy to try to play, but I… by Marc Sabatella
I did address ZMD's point when I said, "The ?/? measures on the left are by far the most obvious 4/4 to me. The others take more working out because there are more notes plus ties."
In reply to I did address ZMD's point… by yonah_ag
I only play solo guitar and have never played along with anyone else. I don't disagree with any of your points on notation theory, I just realize that I have some entrenched methods which will take some practise to unlearn. Musical notation has stood the test of time for good reasons. My method may be suitable for a beginner but clearly has limitations.
I will follow frfrancha's advice further down, i.e. use the basic patterns as a model so that I will apply the rules without having to know them all in full.
All the scores that I play are in MuseScore format so, when in doubt, I just get Musescore to play them. My own transcriptions are based on solo guitar YouTube videos so I have a performance as a model too.
In reply to I did address ZMD's point… by yonah_ag
True enough, sorry, it's easy to get lost in this monster of a thread.
Still, I'd just observe that while you may currently be faster at doing the math without the additional notes (ties don't affect this calculation at all of course), the difference between 5 notes and 4 notes is 20%, so logically you'd be only 20% faster when adding note lengths. Whereas with pattern recognization, you'd likely be more like 10 times faster or more. So it's not about whether you currently are faster with one version than the other, it's about how much faster it's possible to become once you learn how. One method locks you into your current speeds. The other instantly unlocks an order of magnitude improvement in speed and accuracy, but only with the correctly notated version.
Again, not that time signature recognition is an important goal in itself, but it's indicative of the types of improvements in sight-reading ability that are possible.
In reply to True enough, sorry, it's… by Marc Sabatella
20% faster for the fewer notes and another 5% for the ties! (I trip over them visually for some reason) - and, yes, there is not much scope for improvement so it's time to learn the patterns.
In reply to Re: Marc Sabatella • Jan 6,… by yonah_ag
Keep in mind those handouts are not the full course, they are just two handouts from a course containing dozens of handouts as well as videos. The info on foreground/background beats is covered in earlier handouts, so check the set those handouts came from for the rest. Note also that those specific terms (foreground / background) are not universally used but are found in some textbooks and I find them useful. Also better pedagogically than "big beat" and "little beat" which are sometimes used colloquially, especially for compound meter.
In reply to The specific way in which… by Marc Sabatella
Marc, you said:
"The specific way in which one makes their music hard for people to read isn't the issue I was responding to. It was the idea that making music easily readable isn't necessarily a worthy goal to begin with. If you want to take that stance, fine, but then smileys and everything else I mentioned are fair game as well."
I never said that I wanted to make music hard to read. That is a completely incorrect assumption on your part. I only questioned the need to almost always show where beat three was. For some reason, you decided that I don't care about readable notation, at all. In fact, that entire smiley face paragraph was condescending and unbecoming a teacher.
I don't read or write complicated rhythms. Please read that sentence again. I'll do it for you. I don't read or write complicated rhythms. I think it odd that you would find any rhythm I've posted in this thread to be unreadable. Much less your claim that every musician that has ever lived would have the same problem. They are frighteningly simple rhythms. Four or five notes per measure.
And why does clave get a pass? Is it the rhythm or the instrument? If I write a piece for orchestra using that rhythm, will it be readable?
I'm not really trying to be difficult. Things have to make some kind of sense to me. before I buy into them. If we always did things the way they've always been done, I suspect we'd still be banging on rocks.
In reply to Marc, you said: "The… by bobjp
The statements to which I was responding were these:
"OTOH, we seem to only care about what is fast and easy. As though fast and easy = better. Always."
"Professionals in a recording session that have no rehearsal time, need to read the music correctly the first time. I get it. But I submit that the vast number of scores are not used this way."
These statements seem to very clearly suggest that making things fast and easy to read the first time is not always better - that something else - like saving ink? - might sometimes be more important. And that in fact making it easy to read the first time is not important for the vast number of scores. I am disagreeing with those statements. When it comes to music notation making it fast and easy to read is always better, and it's important not just for the small number of scores read in a recording session, but the vast majority of scores. Amateurs deserves easy-to-read music as much as professionals do.
As for the notion of a "complicated" rhythm, I'm not talking about crazy polyrhythms of seven against five across the beat in 11/8 meter. I just mean, anything that triggers the sort of things we are talking about here - places where notes cross the natural divisions of the measures. Yes, some of these rhythms are simple to play, especially if you look at them one at a time and study them for a few seconds each. But sight-reading, at tempo, reliably, while also getting the right pitch, articulation, dynamics, and watching the conductor, etc - that's another matter. "Cognitive dissonance" is a real thing. When you see something you've never literally seen before in your life, it does not get processed as smoothly as when it's something you've seen a million times. And that leads to errors. Anyone with that kind of professional experience will tell you the same.
As for why the clave rhythm gets a pass - mostly just because it is so pervasive in some styles, it ends up being just as commonly seen as the 'normal" patterns. There may be a small handful of other style-dependent special exceptions, but that and the consistent-syncopated-quarters are really the only ones I can think of. This comes up periodically on the music engraving forums, and I can't recall any other examples where there was any sort of consensus among the professions there that it was worth making an exception for. But those, yes. Actually, they tend to be more conservative and don't allow for the clave rhythm either, but those of us in the jazz and commercial music world sometimes do.
In reply to The statements to which I… by Marc Sabatella
Of course an easy to read score is important. I never said other wise. Never. Please stop, already. We disagree on the details of what that looks like. The fast and easy comment had more to do with today in general. How can I make the software do more faster. Rather than the musical quality that is the result.
You keep reading the wrong things into what I say. So perhaps you will allow me to do the same. All this talk about notation that can be read at first glance (as important as that is, I know) misses the point. And that is that the music needs to be good. Who cares if beat three is notated properly if the music is....bad. "The music we played was junk, but at least the notation was correct", is not a win. Do not mistake that sentence for a second to mean that I don't care about notation. But for me proper notation in bad music is only a score of 50%. Hardly passing. So then you ask who decides what music is good? Again, that's not the point. It has to be a complete package.
But again, I don't write the kind of rhythms that we are talking about. Smiley faces or no.
In reply to Of course an easy to read… by bobjp
I accept that you didn't mean what it appeared you did.
So, there are several different potential areas of discussion that are crossing into each other here. Some of them have objective right and wrong answers, others are worth discussing among anyone interested.
Q1: are there rules for notation of rhythm (that include things like showing beat 3) that are universally known and have been followed by music publishers for centuries?
A1: yes, absolutely, positively, no possible room for debate on this, it's just a fact
Q2: does following these rules in your writing help most musicians read your music better?
A2: yes, positively, absolutely, this has been conclusively shown through countless experiments
Q3: are there some exceptions to these rules?
A3: yes, although these are more subjective and worth discussing as they come up
Q4: do there exist musicians who can read incorrectly written rhythms better than they can read correctly written ones?
A4: several people on this thread claim to be examples of this; absent proof they are actually playing the incorrectly-written ones well, I'll reserve judgement
Q5: can any of these people who prefer incorrectly written rhythms read them as well as skilled readers can read correctly written ones?
A5: In hundreds of trials I have conducted, I yet to see a single case of this, so I'm convinced it's highly unlikely, but if anyone believes themselves to be an exception and wants to submit to the test, the offer remains open
Now the really important question:
Q6: could the musicians who prefer the incorrect rhythms improve their reading skills by learning to take advantage of the rules of notation and working with correctly written notation?
A6: over the course of decades of teaching, I am firmly convinced the answer is yes, with countless students who thank me for the improvement I have made in their ability to deal with rhythm
And now a new point you've introduced:
Q7: does it matter if the music is written correctly if it's bad music?
A7: good notation doesn't make bad music good; I am interested in helping people create better music and notate it better
In reply to I accept that you didn't… by Marc Sabatella
Mainly, I wonder about the proclivity to speak in absolutes regarding a field as fluid as music.
Q1: are there rules for notation of rhythm (that include things like showing beat 3) that are universally known and have been followed by music publishers for centuries?
A1: I can't answer this one until I have reviewed every piece of music ever produced by every publisher for centuries. Based on incomplete evidence, I must wonder if this is even an important question at this time. This in no way denies that these rules exist. They do. I never said otherwise. It is the absolutely, positively, for all time aspect that troubles me.
Q2: does following these rules in your writing help most musicians read your music better?
A2: Wait. I thought that unless the beat three rule was followed NO musicians would be able to read the music, ever. But I will agree because the question has been softened a little. Properly notated music (including beat three) can help. I never said otherwise. Again, I only wonder about the absoluteness of it.
Q3: are there some exceptions to these rules?
A3: this is hard to answer because it has never been stated what they are.
Q4: do there exist musicians who can read incorrectly written rhythms better than they can read correctly written ones?
A4: I can't answer this because I haven't spoken to every musician who has ever lived. However, teachers know that different people learn differently. And that they can manifest what they learn in different ways. This has nothing to do with music, but consider something as simple as writing the date. Where I live the standard correct order is mm/dd/year. But I deal with some places that use dd/mm/year instead. In situations where both month an day are single digits it can be very confusing. I have to stop and try to figure out what the date is. I would not be surprised if there are publishers in some countries that do not follow the exact same rules that every other publisher has followed for centuries. But I have no proof of that because I have yet to study every piece of music ever published.
Q5: can any of these people who prefer incorrectly written rhythms read them as well as skilled readers can read correctly written ones?
A5: without knowing how your trials were conducted, it's hard to say.
Q6: could the musicians who prefer the incorrect rhythms improve their reading skills by learning to take advantage of the rules of notation and working with correctly written notation?
A6: I don't doubt your results. But over all, more might be shown if several professional musicians not trained in reading rhythms the same way you teach, could be "tested". But whatever the results, the idea that the primary reason for proper notation is correct sight reading is a problem for me. The primary reason for proper notation is documentation. How that documentation is used is not always a given. When a publisher accepts a score for publication, they do things to it to make it fit their standards. How far they go, I don't know. Notation changes. How often do we see on this forum, someone who's trying to replicate some 150 year old Italian score. Only to be confronted with something that is no longer in use.
Q7: does it matter if the music is written correctly if it's bad music?
A7: I agree that both are important. But I really was asking which is more important? My answer would be that good music is more important
In reply to Mainly, I wonder about the… by bobjp
Music itself is not a matter of absolutes. But it's certainly possible to make absolute statements about rules of notation, just as it is possible (and I have carefully done so) to be clear about what is objective and what is not.
Like I said, it's pointless to debate Q1. This is absolutely known - these rules have existed and been followed for centuries, even if occasional exceptions exist. There is little more to be gained from further discussion of the remaining points until you manage to convince yourself of this. So I'll wait until then.
In reply to Music itself is not a matter… by Marc Sabatella
Did I stutter in my answer to Q1? I never said the rules don't exist or haven't been followed.
I am currently looking for a centuries old source on notation.
In reply to Did I stutter in my answer… by bobjp
No, you did not stutter. You were quite clear when you said - and I quote - "I can't answer this one until ...".
And earlier when you wrote, "This forum is the only place I've ever heard of needing to notate where beat three in a four beat measure is. ... Assumed, maybe. But a rule?"
So I am merely suggesting the rest of the discussion be tabled until you can answer this one, and no longer express any reservations at all about this basic fact, since the rest of the discussion hinges on agreement on this.
If/when you decide you are comfortable with the answer, and if you find other aspects of the conversation worth continuing, I'm happy to do so. I'd suggest you start a new thread at that time since this one has been derailed enough.
In reply to No, you did not stutter. … by Marc Sabatella
I think you enjoy taking parts of my answers and purposely pretending to misunderstanding them. Unless you truly did not understand that the "I can't answer this one until", was a bit of humor.
As I am perfectly comfortable with my answers, I wouldn't mind continuing this in another thread. But you won't continue until I agree with you 100%. But at that point it isn't a discussion any more: It's you dictating the conversation.
I do agree with you 90%. I get the feeling that is not enough.
If/when you decide you are comfortable with 90%, we might be able to continue.
In reply to I think you enjoy taking… by bobjp
I did not see any any indication that your statement was not meant completely seriously, so I took it at face value.
Anyhow, I don’t need there to be 100% agreement on everything. I actually need there to be any agreement at all - there’s no particular reason this discussion needs to continue.
But if one is to discuss the impact and ramifications of the rules of notation - which is what the rest of the discussion is about - there does need to be unequivocal agreement that those rules really do exist. In particular, acknowledgement that it is not in fact something invented only on this forum, and not something that is just personal opinion or followed by only a fraction of the music out there, but something universally known and used by virtually all publishers for centuries.
Because it is precisely that universality that makes them so important to understand and to follow, as that is what determines what ends up being most readable. If there were different rules followed universally, different notations would be the ones that are most readable. It’s the fact that these specific rules are the ones followed universally that everything else discussed here hinges upon.
In reply to I did not see any any… by Marc Sabatella
You thought that I was actually going to study every piece of music ever published?
Earlier, I admitted that I might have just forgotten about the beat 3 rule. And you kindly provided a link to a page with that information. It's statements like (1)"all publishers for centuries", and (2)"virtually unreadable" that bother me. These are the absolutes I've been talking about. Not the rules themselves.
(1) Can you produce a page from something 2 or 3 hundred years old about the beat three rule?
(2) I agree that the rule makes things easier to read quickly. I just don't agree with the unreadable part. This seems more like an opinion.
I also agree that there really isn't much worth continuing going on here.
In reply to You thought that I was… by bobjp
No, I thought the impossibility of the task you set forth was suggesting you would never be convinced that such universally-agreed-upon rules actually do exist - that proving it to you would be impossible, and you would continue to believe that while different sorts sort of subjectively-determined rules exist somewhere, they are not universally agreed-upon.
Again, if you're now saying you accept that there really are such rules, great. In which case, you don't need me to do further research for you to find 200-yeard-old treatises on music engraving. If you continue to doubt, then I invite you to do your own research, and let me know when it's concluded.
As for the term "unreadable", note I always qualify it with the word "virtually" - which is to say, not literally, not completely 100%, but very significantly harder to read and very likely to lead to errors for the vast majority of people, and what it likely to lead to reading. It's not about my opinion, it's about what is literally true for the vast majority of musicians.
In reply to No, I thought you were… by Marc Sabatella
It has always been the "for centuries" part that bothers me. It's not that important to me, but it seems to be important to you. You mention it in almost every post in this thread. I have been waiting for you to back that statement up. You've had ample opportunity. That idea must come from some centuries old document somewhere. If you can't produce it, that's fine, I guess.
I actually like this that you used:
eye kann right a cent ants lyke this and ewe kann still reed itt, butt itz much slower.
I think if you spell everything correctly , but put the spaces in the wrong place, a better example can be made.
I ca nwri tea sent encel ike thi sand we can still read it, bu ti t'smu chs lower.
In reply to It has always been the "for… by bobjp
An interesting comparison. That sentence would actually be pretty simple to read if only we spelled words phonetically. When we speak a sentence there is no hint of a space between words.
In reply to That last sentence would… by yonah_ag
Another example related to recognition and comprehension - with a touch of levity:
(Though still off topic from fgregs original topic, sorry)
In reply to Another example related to… by Jm6stringer
Amzanig idened!
In reply to It has always been the "for… by bobjp
I keep mentioning "for centuries" part because as explained, it is absolutely true and absolutely essential to understand in the context of the rest of the discussion. It's why I can state that no musician on earth has ever encountered any of those incorrectly-written rhythms before - because they wouldn't have been published today, last year, or 200 years ago. And if one such mistake slipped through the cracks in one edition somewhere, then fine, 0.00001% of musicians have seen that 0.00001% of the time. Still in no way diminishes the point being made by such statements.
Whereas if these rules were recent inventions, that point would be diminished, because musicians would have been seeing these rhythms - incorrect by modern standards, correct in 1900 - in older editions all the time. It's the fact that these conventions have been recognized for centuries that everything else I am talking about follows from.
So again, we really can't discuss the ramifications of this absolutely true fact until it there is acknowledgment that it is an absolutely true fact.
And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. As an analogy, consider if you statement a few days ago that you had never heard anywhere except on this forum that half notes were twice as long as quarter notes and expressed doubt that this was even a rule. If I told you that no, this is an absolutely universally agreed-upon convention that has been followed for centuries, and showed you a reference to this, but you said it wasn't good enough, you needed one from 300 years ago as well, I'd be taking the same stance. That is, I would suggest that if you still doubt was has been carefully explained and documented, that you do your own research here to convince yourself further. I am already taking considerable time to provide information in this thread, and don't mind doing so, but my time is limited, so I try to focus it on things where I think I can bring unique value. Since doing the research is something you are as capable of doing as I, and you are the one interested in the result, I simply ask that you assist in your own education here
In reply to I keep mentioning "for… by Marc Sabatella
Professional guitarist and composer, gigging and studio work + master degree in music, just a quick jump in. Marc is totally right about the notation rules. I get that the word "rule" itself is a bit triggering (especially for enthusiastic rule-breakers like myself). But as Marc wrote, it doesn't really matter if you don't follow the rules. There's no notation-police. It just really helps the reading process if you follow them.
I would like to add the perspective that: notation = the easiest and fastest communication of your musical idea. How to play it, how to feel it, how to interpret (or not to interpret) it. Notation is language, and language doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you write purely based on counting duration, it might work for you, but you miss out on the depth and beauty of established tradition (and you also miss out on the effect of breaking the tradition if you can't establish or follow it in the first place). Plus, you miss out on easy communication with other musicians.
Follow the rules if your idea allows you to, but of course, if you have some really specific concept and you have an unconventional idea for notating it that gets the message across better, go for it. Graphic notation for example is a nice example of breaking/merging tradition with creative notation :).
If you think about notation a bit like poetry, a fun metaphor comes to mind: it can be beautiful and correct in it's own unique way to not follow the rules. But still, like a good poet, you gotta be in control of where and how you break the rules. Breaking the rules is a pretty dramatic statement in itself, so it doesn't make sense to do without special intent. For example, if a poem is making a statement about breaking rules for rhyming, it would be sad if it was spelled completely wrong.
So, fgregs, what did end up deciding for your rests?
In reply to So, **fgregs*, what did end… by yonah_ag
Some may not like the answer. After this long and somewhat contentious discussion, I realized that to use rests properly, I would have to be meticulously aware of a slew of rules ... what beat to use them on, when to use them on beats 1, 2, 3 or 4, when I'm allowed to use dots or added notes & ties, or quarter or half rests and when I'm not, and so on. I know as Marc said, to be precise and have my music ready for a professional musician to read quickly without practice, I should learn all this correctly. Slowly, I will. I need to compile a list of rules, print it, and consult it whenever I work on a new song. Until then, I will try to follow at least a few of those rules, but I know I will violate some of them in posting new rests, both inside and outside of a piano stave.
I thank Marc and all of you for this discussion. It has helped me to learn more about proper music notation.
In reply to Some may not like the answer… by fsgregs
🙂
In reply to Some may not like the answer… by fsgregs
Perhaps you don't need to learn "rules" in a theoretical way: just have a look at the latest post of Ziya giving very good examples following the rules vs not following them.
Hopefully it should "click" and therefore becomes obvious/intuitive.
After that you will write following the rules not because you know them but because it just makes sense.
I prefer example B. I don't like looking at rests when the notes can be held longer. But also ties are not that great either. I'd say B.
In reply to I prefer example B. I don't… by [DELETED] 39723913
I like B also. Why? You already know where beat three is because your other hand just played it
As the person who has dragged this thread way past usefulness, I will leave you all with these thoughts:
I looked and have been unable to find any centuries old documentation of the beat three rule. That doesn't mean anything one way or the other. I have found that as movable type came into the printing business, notation started to become more standard. I already knew that the likes of Beethoven and Mendelssohn were notorious for just scribbling stuff down. Then a copyist would make things legible before going to a printer.
It is the nature of the "virtually" absolute statements that I find disappointing. Follow the rules. Of course this is important. I never said otherwise. But, the or else "virtually" no musicians will be able to read your music, I find to be disingenuous. We might write rhythm that "virtually" no musician has ever seen, and therefore it is "virtually" unplayable. It shouldn't make any difference if it's in a sight reading situation or not.
And then to put the onus on me to produce documentation counter to something that I never claimed first, is interesting. Not to mention being made fun of and practically insulted.
I've been writing music off and on for over fifty years. I've never had anyone claim they couldn't read what I wrote. I write for my own enjoyment. I write for the fun of it. Therapy, if you will. But this thread has been slowly sucking the fun out of music and making it sterile.
This just isn't worth it. I have to figure out if MuseScore is worth it.
In reply to I like B also. Why? You… by bobjp
Sorry to hear you're feeling that way! To be clear, no one has been trying to make fun of you or insult you. We are simply trying to educate people here.
Learning the rules of music notation shouldn't affect the music itself, just how readable it is. If you don't care about making your more music more readable, you don't have to participate in these discussions at all, and no one will think less of you.
if you do care about making your music more readable, I would encourage you to simply accept the advice being given here - no need to keep fighting it or be offended by it or think of it as sucking the fun out. We really do know what we are talking about, and we really are trying our very best to help people here.
In reply to Sorry to hear you're feeling… by Marc Sabatella
OK. under the heading of providing education, then:
I posted a page that showed different kinds of measures where beat three was not notated. I was told there were exceptions that would be discussed when they were brought up. How can we bring them up if we don't know what they are? In other words, what are the exceptions? This was not a denial of the rule. Just a request for more information.
I asked for some period back up on notation rules in general. I like to know the history of things. I was told to do my own research. While there are older reference materials out there, I don't have access to them because I'm not a student or a teacher enrolled in a particular class. Again, this was not a denial of the rules. Just a request for more information.
The only thing I've been "fighting" is the idea that every musician that has ever lived for the last few centuries, has only ever read music produced by a publisher. That should the beat three rule be forgotten just once, then the music is "virtually" unreadable.
I never said I wasn't interested in my music being readable.
In reply to OK. under the heading of… by bobjp
Glad to hear that!
First, regarding doing research - indeed, I don't know of a particular published reference to consult from the 18th or 19th century. What I do know is IMSLP. By simply examining the published music of those centuries, it is not hard to confirm the rules taught today were followed then as well. You can also trace the evolution of subtle changes and refinements to those rules, while still noting the overall consistency of the goal of clarifying the beat structure.
On to specifics:
The page you posted in https://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/2022-01/beat%203.jpg contains only one relevant example that I can see: the dotted half followed by two-eighths. This is indeed the very first case I discussed - it's not an "exception" so much as a part of the full rule. As explained, the full rule allows for any note value that is allowed on a particular beat in a non-subdivided pattern to remained on that beat even if the rest of the measure is subdivided. So, since dotted half / quarter is one on the eighth patterns in a non-subdivided measure, dotted half on beat 1 remains valid even if beat 4 is subdivided.
Other than that, this page contains no examples of exceptions whatsoever. Every other measure containing eighth note subdivisions shows beat 3 clearly. Measures without eighth note subdivisions of course don't necessarily, but that's totally fine according to the rule.
Elsewhere, you did show a couple of isolated examples - not a whole page full - of rhythms that are considered exceptions. This is in https://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/styles/width_1480/publi…-. Here, the exceptions are precisely the ones I explained - consistent quarter note syncopations and the clave rhythm (in those genres where this pattern is common; in other genres most editors do not consider this an exception).
As it happens, the rhythm that started this discussion - dotted half on beat 2, followed by eighth on beat 3& as per https://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/styles/width_360/public… - is also considered an exception by some editors. A minority, in my experience, but you probably won't have to search more than a thousand measures on IMSLP to find an example of that in published music, so indeed, that one occurs a non-negligible fraction of a percent of the time. So it's fair to say - as I did - that "most" musicians have never seen it, but no doubt some have, if only rarely.
it's not like there is a comprehensive list of exceptions. They tend to be evaluated as they arise. But the ones here are almost certainly the most common exceptions. My guess is the quarter note syncopation would be most common, in the sense that maybe as many as 50% of editors would allow that. The other two are, I think, decidedly less commonly recognized as exceptions - almost certainly well under 10%. There is no other rhythm I can think of offhand that even 1% of editors would consistently allow as an exception , but again, it's not like there is a list somewhere; it's very context-depending.
Anyhow, none of these common cases were among those I called "virtually unreadable. I suspect you could example millions of measures on IMSLP and not find a single example of a rhythm like the one in https://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/styles/width_740/public… (either version). Or the ones shown in the first two measures of https://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/styles/width_1480/publi…. This is the one where I said that most likely no musician has seen that before. And if we consider actual published music - not threads like this or textbooks showing those as examples of wrong ways to notate rhythm 0 I think there's a pretty good chance of it being literally true.
In reply to Glad to hear that! First,… by Marc Sabatella
So, I didn't realize that the common rhythm chart that Ziya posted was the "sacred eight rhythms" My bad.
In reply to Sorry to hear you're feeling… by Marc Sabatella
I think that the discussion took a major nose dive round about, "Anyhow, if you don't care to have people read your music, you're obviously welcome to write it however you want. Use smiley faces instead of noteheads, make your stems zigzag, your beams curved, use a single a eleven-line staff instead of a grand staff, invent a new clef, write backwards and/or upside down, have a ball!"
Whilst bobjp, (and others, including myself), may have broken some of the grammar rules of notation there was never any suggestion that he wasn't bothered about readability. The remarks about "smileys and zigzags" may have been tongue-in-cheek hyperbole but, to be quite honest, they came across as really belittling. I guess that wasn't the intention but it's hard to pick up tone of voice in text comments.
In reply to I think that the discussion… by yonah_ag
Well, I've already pointed out the exact passages I was responding to, and it's already been clarfiied that apparently the passages I was responding to were meant as a joke or not literally or otherwise not as I they initial appeared. So I long ago apologized for the misunderstanding. To be clear, It it was never intended as belittling in the slightest. If someone honestly and legitimately doesn't care about readability - as a literal read of passage I was responding to would have implied - then my response is not belittling at all, but equally honest and legitimate. Non-traditional / experimental notations are absolutely a thing, and pointing out that what is being proposed is part of the grand traditional of other non-traditional / experimental notations is not belittling at all.
In any case, I have no interest in belittling anyone or indeed in making any of this even remotely personal. Because it isn't personal, that's kind of the whole point here. These rules of notations are not personal, they are universal. This is what I have been saying along. I prefer to stick to discussing music notation here, not speculating about people's personalities.
In reply to Well, I've already pointed… by Marc Sabatella
Wait. Are the above the eight rhythms that allow one to read any rhythm that one comes across? Really?
In reply to Wait. Are the above the… by bobjp
I don't think that the list is complete. My biggest problem is tripping over tied notes but there are no ties shown in the above patterns.
In reply to I don't think that the list… by yonah_ag
Precisely - none of the patterns themselves require ties. As explained within the lesson on ties, they are there to clarify that a given measure is actually composed of two separate patterns - one encompassing the first half of the measure, the other encompassing the second half, with a tie between them.
In reply to I don't think that the list… by yonah_ag
I've been trying to follow all the discussion in this thread. I'm sorry if I started something here but frankly, what we all may need is that comprehensive list of rules for how to use rests, ties & dots. I found a few rules online, a few more in Marc's posts, but what I could sure use is a single list ... 8 or 10 or 12 rules long, to fully clarify what is "professional" for posting rests, etc. In at least 3/4, 4/4, & 6/8 time. Does anyone have that list, or could point me to one, or Marc, could you type one up in maybe 10 minutes and share it with us all?
Thanks
Frank
In reply to I've been trying to follow… by fsgregs
I'm not sure it's possible to sum up every single rule of notation in only a dozen bullet points. But the most important part when it comes to rhythm is quite simple:
If a measure contains eighth notes, pretend there is an imaginary barline every two beats, break note and values and beams accordingly.
If a measure contains sixteenth notes, do the same every beat.
Beyond that, there are some additional things to consider that are a little harder to put into words.
Rests cannot be syncopated. That is, while you can have a half note on beat 2, or a quarter not on the offbeat, in the syncopated pattern quarter-half-quarter or eighth-quarter-eighth - you can't have a half rest on 2 or quarter rest on an offbeat.
If a note of a given duration can sit on a given beat according to one of the given patterns, it can remain so even if the remainder of the measure is further divided. Classic example, a dotted half can sit on beat 1 according to the basic eight patterns in full beats, so it can continue to sit on beat 1 even if the remainder of the measure (eg, beat 4) is divided into eighths.
More info is here in the handout that was posted to this thread some time ago:
https://musescore.com/marcsabatella/notation-rules-rhythm
(but also other handouts from that same series, such as the one on the patterns themselves, on rests, on ties, etc).
More info still in the full course for which that handout was created (link in the description).
In reply to I'm not sure it's possible… by Marc Sabatella
Sorry, Marc, but I have to disagree with your label of the first line of your handout. I probably wouldn't write those rhythms in the first two measures like that. But "virtually unreadable"? Certainly not. Perhaps "more difficult", or "less clear" would be more honest. You may think that when you use the term "virtually" that everyone understands it the way you mean it. I was able to read those rhythms. Where they written correctly? That's not the point. If we want accuracy in notation, don't you think we need accuracy in education?
Again, those rhythms may not be notated correctly. But they are certainly readable. This little point is what I've been trying to get across. Your use of virtually makes me wonder about other things you've said. Words matter. just like proper notation.
In reply to Sorry, Marc, but I have to… by bobjp
"Virtually", again, not meaning "exactly". Yes, given sufficient time and not needing to do it in context, sure, they can be read. But can they be read 100% accurately, and up to tempo, when sight reading, in an actual reading situation where you also need to process pitch, articulation, dynamics, and other information? Again, for the vast majority of musicians, the answer is "no". For correctly written rhythms, the answer is yes - almost complete success can be achieved.
In these type of real-world reading situations, maybe one in a few thousand musicians might succeed with an acceptable degree of accuracy, with the incorrectly notated rhythms. Calling this state of affairs "virtually unreadable" is completely reasonable. You're right, words matter. That's I choose mine carefully. It isn't just "slightly easier to read". It's night and day, almost guaranteed failure in actual reading situations, versus piece of cake.
If you believe yourself to be one of those 99.9th percentile readers who would succeed here where almost everyone else would fail, I'll extend my congratulations when I see the video evidence of this. But as it is, I see no reason to assume you'd succeed in a real world reading situation just because, with all the time in the world and none of those other considerations going on, you were able to decipher the rhythms. Anyone can do that, yes. But that's not what true readability entails.
In reply to "Virtually", again, not… by Marc Sabatella
I already admitted to not being a great sight reader. In my situation, I don't need to be.
I never claimed that improperly notated music could be read as quickly as properly notated music in the crucible sight reading situation you mention.
I only wonder about:
1. That you know the vast majority of musicians. And know the exact percentage of musicians that read differently.
2. When you say "true readability" I assume you mean your crucible sight reading standards. There are plenty of other situations.
3. That the only reading situation that really matters is your real world situation.
4. That improper notation is "unreadable".
In reply to I already admitted to not… by bobjp
When it comes to actually teaching music, I have virtually infinite patience. I will happily answer questions all day long.
When it comes to engaging in pointless arguing that in way increases anyone's understanding of anything, I think most people will tell you I have a pretty high tolerance there too, way too much for my own good, or that of anyone else. But I do have my limits.
If you want to discuss music - to learn more about the rules of notation, so you can write more readable music and become a better reader - I'm happy to help.
In reply to I've been trying to follow… by fsgregs
OK, I have taken a foolish stab and compiling my own list of Rules for Ties, Rests and Dots. It is most certainly NOT complete, but hopefully, by combining lots of reading both here and from the web, I have assembled at least most of the rules. They are attached. Please examine them and all my examples, and tell me if I screwed up badly, just a little, or if the Rules are actually not bad. Thanks in advance.
Frank
In reply to OK, I have taken a foolish… by fsgregs
Sorry, I'm not understanding how those relate to what I said at all. For one thing, there is no reason to write the notes then tie them it's more efficient to add the tie and note simultaneously, although that's more an efficient use of MuseScore thing than a rule of notation. But also, there is no rule that says anything abut whether the longer note value in a tie comes first. It's always exactly as I said - you tie across the imaginary barlines.
Also the dots rules are not accurate. In particularly, there is no rule that says not to use dots, and replacing a dot with a rest changes the meaning entirely - that was the whole original point of this thread.
No need to overcomplicate this. As I said, there is more to it than I wrote, but those four rules cover 95% of cases you need to worry about, without any of that additional complication. What's wrong with just taking those four rules and leaving it at that?
In reply to Sorry, I'm not understanding… by Marc Sabatella
Sigh! I thought all of the rules in my handout came from you and/or music theory and other notation websites, whereby other authors listed the recognized "Rules for Ties, Rests and Dots". I will give you a few links to them if you wish. I am not wedded at all to any of them, so if any are NOT required, I will remove them. BTW, none of them came from YouTube ... they all were listed on teaching websites for music notation, created by claimed music teachers and even music course websites.
In your notation handout, you specifically say "Do not use Dotted Rests". Maybe that is only for certain cases, but it is confusing to me. I added it to my rules in part because you (and another music site) stated it as a rule, at least for simple time. If it's wrong, just when do I use dotted rests?
Please understand that the less rules I need to follow, the better. I want to comply with your recommendations, but I really do need the specific rules for Ties, Rests and Dots. If there are only 4 rules for all of them, please restate them here? I have lost track of which 4 rules you've mentioned. Thanks.
In reply to Sigh! I thought all of the… by fsgregs
No doubt, each of those rules came from somewhere (well, except for the part of replacing dots with rests, that must have just been a misunderstanding). The point is, they don't add up to any meaningful, because they are excerpted from lots of different contexts in which the rules were broken down differently, then spliced together in a way that created confusion where none was needed. Again, don't overcomplicate this. It's not a whole bunch of arbitrary rules to memorize. It's a small handful of very simple common-sense principles.
Regarding the dotted rests - any time I said not to use them, I was talking about simple meter. All of this shifts somewhat - same principles, different in details - in compound meter.
For the most part, the four rules I stated before remain all you need most of the time, as laid out in https://musescore.org/en/node/327944#comment-1111362. The "no dotted rests" rule isn't quite covered here, my bad. Change the third of thoe four rules to talk about rests starting and ending on multiples of their own length, and then no dots follows naturally from that.
In reply to Wait. Are the above the… by bobjp
As the handout (and video lesson within my course) explains, those are the only eight rhythms involving those durations, period. As in, mathematically speaking, there are only eight ways of filling a full 4/4 measure with notes values of full beats; only eight ways of filling half a measure with note values involving eighth note divisions, only eight ways of filling a single beat with note values involving sixteenth note subdivisions.
This mathematical fact is the key to everything here. Because these are literally the only possible rhythms using these durations (e.g., not using tuplets), it follows that all actual rhythms in the world (gain, not using tuplets) can be written in terms of these. The rules of music notation are based on this simple fact - it's always possible to write a rhythm in a way that makes it plainly obvious at a glance how it is built of these eight rhythms.
So, there is nothing "sacred" about these rhythms. They aren't important because they are somehow special compared to other rhythms - they are important because there are no other rhythms. Yes, except tuplets, or other non-metric rhythms, but that's not what we're talking about here.
In reply to As the handout (and video… by Marc Sabatella
It's not the mathematically full beats that trouble me: it's the mathematically non-full beat patterns that are tricky to count, i.e. tied notes which don't sum to an integer number of beats.
These tied notes are more trouble than partial differential equations and Fourier transforms any day of the week. I don't find that ties clarify at all but it looks like l need to get to grips with them if I want to produce readable music.
In reply to It's not the mathematically… by yonah_ag
With the patterns, you can replace a note with a rest, and you can/should use ties between the patterns.
In reply to It's not the mathematically… by yonah_ag
@yonah_ag...
Marc wrote:
If a measure contains eighth notes, pretend there is an imaginary barline every two beats, break note and values and beams accordingly.
If a measure contains sixteenth notes, do the same every beat.
O.K. so for 16th notes...
Scott Joplin himself, when trying to explain "ragtime" (in 1908) created 6 exercises. With a time signature of 2/4, his notation breaks measures (of 16th notes) whenever necessary using ties across beats 1 & 2 to show the syncopation.
See:
https://musescore.com/james_brigham/school-of-ragtime
In reply to It's not the mathematically… by yonah_ag
Once you take the time to understand this - really it doesn't take long, the videos accompanying those handouts are only an hour or so total, or do the equivalent amount of reading - it all comes together very nicely and things become simple and obvious.
But as a starting point, consider this - it is never relevant to try summing the number of beats in tied notes. There is nothing to be gained from doing so - only time to be lost and confusion to be had. Knowing how long a tied note lasts does help one read music efficiently. All that matters is, what beat does the next note come in on. The durations take care of themselves, as explained previously.
And figuring out what beat the next note comes in on doesn't require math, not even simple addition, much less differential equations. Once again, it's a simple matter of recognizing the pattern. If you see a pattern consisting of dotted quarter followed by eighth, the eighth comes in on the "and" of 2 (relative to the start of that pattern) each and every time without fail, regardless of whether that dotted quarter stands alone or was tied into. It doesn't matter how long that note was, the second note of a dotted quarter / eighth pattern is on 2&, and you can take that to the bank.
In reply to Once you take the time to… by Marc Sabatella
I've found a solo guitar video, (linked to a book), which has helped me to get the idea rather better. There is a section on rhythms and the teacher clearly demonstrates techniques for learning to count the beat. As you've been saying, the focus is on keeping the beat. He plays to where the beats are and the note lengths take care of themselves.
I think that seeing it on a guitar really helped.
https://youtu.be/sMmhatVNDdc
(I may well buy the book so that I can follow all the exercises)
In reply to I've found a solo guitar… by yonah_ag
Great! It should be noted that my course and its handouts are about teaching how to write, with no real attempts teaching how to use this to re-learn how to read. Here, though, there is no shortage of info out there.
Guitar is an especially great instrument for thinking about this, precisely because durations are often irrelevant. That is, much of the time on guitar, you don't play a quarter note differently than a half note, you just pluck and let ring. More so than other instruments, it's clear that when you pluck is more important than how long it happens to ring afterwards, because a good percentage of the time, your durations won't match the notation anyhow. But as noted, even in the cases where for whatever reason it is important to get the duration right, the way you do this is by playing the following note or rest at the right time, not by actually worrying about what the duration is.
In reply to Great! It should be noted… by Marc Sabatella
!!
It's starting to work! I can now read this without thinking length and without tripping up at the tie, just by counting beats and starting notes on time. As you say, with guitar, the written note duration is often much less than the sounding duration anyway.
In reply to !! It's starting to work! I… by yonah_ag
Using you example in a broader context...
Whether tied across a barline, tied into beat 3, tied into beat 2:
![Tie.png]( "Tie.png")
There is a rhythmic similarity across all three phrases, and it is the tie that exposes the beat. (Tap your foot.)
In reply to Using you example here in a… by Jm6stringer
m6stringer • Jan 11, 2022 - 22:38
Using you example in a broader context...
Yes, I see that now. Same rhythm, just faster.
In reply to !! It's starting to work! I… by yonah_ag
Fantastic, glad to hear it! A trick to consider is to actual "mime" the tied note, making a plucking motion with the finger but not actually engaging the string. One can do the same for rests, for that matter. Probably more trouble than it's worth, but the point is, you always want awareness of that beat and the note or rest that occurs on it.
BTW, what I was actually saying with guitar is that sounding duration is often unrelated to notated - sounding might be shorter, or might be longer. For instance, a simple eighth note arpeggio across the strings, often you let each note ring so they all end up overlapping and only being damped the next time you play another note on the same string. Other times you might more explicitly dampen the strings when a rest occurs.
In reply to Fantastic, glad to hear it! … by Marc Sabatella
Yes, you could dampen at a rest. I tend to play mostly fingerstyle where it is common to let notes ring.
Miming may help to start with as I tend to see the tied-to note and want to pluck because there is a note. Using length reading without ties, (except thru barlines), every note symbol is an instruction to pluck so I need to unlearn this.
Edit: Just tried it; miming works!
Just came across this scoring from Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610:
I guess that he was playing by a different set of rules altogether!
In reply to Just came across this… by yonah_ag
Yes, no meter, fewer rules.
In reply to Just came across this… by yonah_ag
Indeed, the modern concept of meter started to become standard right around his time. Although the idea of meter and of barlines had been around a while, most Renaissance music was not written with explicit measures, and indeed reading it was very duration-based (and not always metric at all - consider chants, etc). It was between the times of Monteverdi and of Bach that composers started writing faster and more complex rhythms, and it started to become apparent that the old system was not sustainable. That was pretty much the genesis of modern notation.
So when I talk of modern rules being in place for centuries, specifically, going back to the mid-17th century, and even then maybe another 100 years or so before it started to really become consistent.
In reply to Indeed, the modern concept… by Marc Sabatella
OK, I have been following and hope I am learning. BUT ... I'm not sure about this. In a song I've composed, the rhythm and timing is this:
Are the rests correct? I have arranged them in order or most senior note. If not, please correct them. I can't change them without changing the timing. Thanks
Frank
In reply to OK, I have been following… by fsgregs
Hi Frank,
There is no such thing as "incorrect" rests.
If that written rhythm is the one you want then by definition they are correct.
However there are universally (well almost universally if we believe this thread) "more easy to read" and "more difficult to read" ways to write them.
In this specific case, the rhythm is so exotic though that no "classical" rule could be applied without making it in fact more difficult to read.
I would just group the 3 last silences of the lower stave by making the first of the 3 silences double dotted (because in total they take less space than a beat and don't align with the upper stave anyway).
In reply to Hi Frank, There is no such… by frfancha
!! You've completely lost me with that one Frank !!
I can't make out the rhythm by beat position or by duration. I'd have to throw it into MuseScore to hear it but I really don't think that I'd be able to play it even then. Is it an unusual style of music?
In reply to !! You've completely lost me… by yonah_ag
OK, I have worked on it, and am attaching a short section of the song as a MuseScore file. Listen to it, tell me if there are better ways to write the same timing/rests, and I will make the changes. Thanks.
In reply to OK, I have worked on it, and… by fsgregs
I'll have a go tomorrow but I may not get it 100% correct, so if Marc has time you would get the best solution.
In reply to OK, I have worked on it, and… by fsgregs
The effect you are going for really shouldn't be notated at all using rhythms - it's more of an ornament, a grace note. That would be much easier to read than any way of writing rhythms in involving a note coming in a thirty-second note after the beat like this. So:
Except also, you should never use 8va on a bass clef staff writing for piano. Just switch to treble clef.
In reply to The effect you are going for… by Marc Sabatella
Marc. Thanks for the advice. I am slowly getting there. That said ....
I have replaced measures 18 and 19 with grace notes. However, I CAN'T GET THE GRACE NOTE IN 19 TO PLAY. It just stays silent. I've compared it to 18 which does play fine, and I cannot see any reason for the problem. Please figure it out and help me here.
Why can someone not use an 8va in the base clef? Is there a rule against it? The reason I ask is that my use of it is not continuous. I use it in measures 1-3, 5-6, & 17-21. All the other measures are regular base clef. I cannot see inserting a treble clef into just a few measures, then switching to a base clef, then back to a treble clef for 2 measures, then back to a base clef, etc. Using the octave tool seems so much easier ... no?
In reply to Marc. Thanks for the advice… by fsgregs
Your grace note plays, but not the way you expect, because you added the wrong type. You added an appoggiature (no slash through stem), which by definition takes half the value of the main note. So it plays the D-F as two eighth notes. That's not what you want - you want an acciaccatura (with slash through stem). Same in bar 18. The only reason that one sound right is that you notated the main note short also. So the grace note is playing for half of that short note, not half of a quarter as in 19.
But as explained a couple of times previously, notating the main note short in 18 makes no sense at all, since the pedal is down. A pianist reading this would not know what to do, because you are asking them to do two mutually incompatible things - play a short note followed by silence, but also hold the pedal. It's physically impossible to do both. if you want the silence, you need to notate a pedal lift. If you don't want silence, you need to not use rests. This isn't a rule of notation per se, it's just common sense as applied to the piano specifically.
As for ottava, iIt's not that you can't use 8va in bass clef, but it isn't normally done by professional editors, so most people have never encountered it before. Meaning, the part of their brain that knows how to process notes patterns gets confused, seeing something it has not had to process before. Instead of processing a common pattern, it has to do extra work to calculate correct position on the keyboard. it's possible to eventually figure out what you mean, yes, but just as with writing rhythms incorrectly, it takes extra time and energy and interferes with accurate reading.
There is no reason in the world not to do it the standard way, by changing clefs where appropriate. It takes no more effort to add a clef change - even every two measures - than it does to add an octave line. Less effort, actually - clef changes are always a single click, ottavas usually at least two. And changing clefs every couple of measures happens all the time, pianists are completely used to that. They are not used to 8va markings in the LH, though. So if you care about readability, do yourself and your readers a favor and use the standard notation here. Easier to enter, easier to read.
In reply to Your grace note plays, but… by Marc Sabatella
Yet OK, I changed things the way you suggest, and the grace notes now play in 18 and 19. Thanks. FYI, I used a "32nd" grace note in my first instance. I have no idea how that differs from an "acciaccatura" grace note, or when I would use one vs another. Is there an explanation somewhere in the MuseScore tutorials, or could you briefly summarize?
I changed the clefs, and took out the 8va in the base clef. I will try hard to use treble clef in the future for all base clef octaves. See Test 3 attachment. That said, I have a new question. On occasion, I want the player to drop down a full octave to play the 1st note in a measure ... just the 1st note. If I write it that way, it can go way down in the sheet music ... way down. Instead, I have been annotating the 1st note with an 8va bassa ... just one note. It looks like this:
Notice that if I don't use 8va bassa, that note looks terribly hard to read. Surely, this is not the preferred way?:
Regarding the pedals, you said I should not use them if I also use rests, if I really want silences in the measure. I do understand that, but if I cannot use rests in a piano score and also use pedal, what can I use? Rests are part of the timing and rhythm of a piece. How can I just remove them? What do I put in their place? It can't all be tied notes, over and over? Regarding pedal, frequently the right hand and left hand ring differently, and the pedal allows me to make sure at least one of the staves sustains, unless I really do want complete silence in that measure.
In reply to Yet OK, I changed things the… by fsgregs
Any standard reference on music notation, including Wikipedia, should be able to explain the difference between appoggiatura and acciaccatura, but it's exactly as I described. The former has no slash and lasts half the value of the main note (used primarily in Baroque and early Classical music, very seldom since), the latter has a slash and is played very fast. Because the appoggiatura has more or less fallen out of use in modern times, some editors will choose to display acciaccaturas with no slash and hope there is no confusion, but I think that's a mistake - it's obviously a point of confusion already, why risk making it worse?
Regarding use of clefs and octave signs, my advice is to study some existing scores to find similar instances and see how professional editors handle it. But note, when I said, no 8va on bass clef, I specifically meant octave above, as you were doing. 8va below is fine (sometimes notated 8ba, occasionally 8vb as well even though most textbooks will tell you that's wrong). This isn't some arbitrary rule, but simply common sense: we use 8va or 8ba when there isn't another common clef we can switch to. We don't put treble clef in 8ba or bass clef in 8va because it's easier for all concerned to just switch clefs.
Similarly, what I'm saying about rests and pedal isn't some arbitrary rule but simple common sense. A rest means "silence", a pedal means "sustain the previous notes". These are simply incompatible. Either you want silence, or you want the previous note sustained. Either is fine, but decide which you want, and notate accordingly. If you want the sustained notes, then notate them exactly the same way you would without pedal. That means using longer durations, ties, dots - whatever the ordinary rules of notation say. Using pedal doesn't change anything about how notation works, just about how the results sound.
In reply to Any standard reference on… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks again. Regarding my question, can I use an 8ba for a single note, as in my example? I don't want to violate some convention. If not, how do I notate a single note that will drop way too low to be read well?
I am not clear about your comment regarding rests and pedals. I fully understand that no one can play a rest if the pedal is down and expect a silence. But as I said, frequently the pedal is held down because the composer wants the base stave notes to be all sustained, perhaps through most of the song, but the treble stave may have single notes and lots of rests as part of the rhythm. While it is true that the pedal forces the player to technically ignore the rests as indicators of a silence, they still can use them fine to pace the beats in the treble clef. For example,
Here, I want all base notes to be sustained, but the treble clef notes and rests are to be played per the beats indicated. Personally, I think any pianist would understand that I am not expecting a silence when encountering a rest (because of the pedal), but to use the treble notes & rests as indicators of when to play or not play the melody.
If this is not true, please redo these two measures to show me exactly HOW you would notate the treble clef AND keep the pedal marks for the base notes. I just don't get my options for using ties and dots instead. Thanks again.
In reply to Thanks again. Regarding my… by fsgregs
Yes, using 8ba for a single bass note is just fine if that's what makes the most sense. Switching clefs for just one note is possible as well. Again, best to study published examples to see best practices.
As for pedal vs rests, again, what I'm talking about isn't some arbitrary rule to learn, it's just plain common sense. Your example shown here is confusing and gives the composer mixed messages - do you really want short notes followed by silence in the RH? If so, then why show the pedal continue straight through? If not, why write rests? It makes no sense. Again, this not some sort of esoteric bit of knowledge, but just common sense. Why go out of your way to write a rest if you don't want silence? Why would you expect someone to just sort of magically know you didn't mean what you actually wrote?
Sounds like you don't want short notes followed by silence - you want the sound to sustain, as it does when MuseScore plays it. So, simply replace the rests with fully-notated durations, according to the standard rules of notation. The note on beat 1 sustains to the 2&, so write it that way, using a dotted quarter. The note on 2& sustains to the end of the measure, so write it that way, as an eighth tied to a half (first bar) or dotted quarter (second bar).
I'm not saying there could never be a case where it makes sense for some special reason to have a rest within a pedal passage, but this example is just confusing - those eighth notes followed by rests look like you are going way out of your way to say "please play this note short" and yet saying "please hold the pedal down to make the note sustain". On more than one occasion, I recall Captain Kirk causing computers to self-destruct with such logic!
In reply to Yes, using 8ba for a single… by Marc Sabatella
This is now really getting VERY frustrating (sorry). In past posts, you insisted that I make sure beat 3 is always notated. You and several others online also said that dots are to be discouraged in simple time. So, I laboriously changed all the beat 1 or 2 notes in my song to make sure there was a rest or note at beat 3, and removed all of the dots. Now, you are suggesting I use dots a lot and remove all the rests, because I am using a pedal. Gees!!!!
I already explained twice that I want the pedal down through many of my piano songs, to sustain the base clef notes. I don't know how to do it any other way, so therefore, I am not going to change that, so please let's stop discussing me removing the pedal marks. They will stay.
In some places in many songs, there is no note at beat 1 or 2 or even 3. The measure's notes may start at beat 4. So, how can a person notate that measure (with a pedal rest for the base clef) without inserting a rest at measures 1-3? What are they supposed to put there? Here is an example. How can I replace the rests at 1, 2 & 3? What am I supposed to use in all 3 beat locations? If there is a "correct" way, please stop telling me about it, and just draw the thing! I just don't grasp it!
Frankly, I am certain that a piano player looking at this example measure would know how to play the lone note and ignore the silence in the rests, even if the pedal mark is present. Apparently, you disagree!.
Here are some other examples:
In this example, I have used a rest in beat 3 as you suggested, but now because you've told me it STILL ISN'T RIGHT, I've changed it to insert a dot on beat 1, and a tie with a half note at beat 3 ... no rests. Frankly, is this how what you now want it? If so, hurrah! Frankly, it looks a lot worse to me to interpret then the first example (harder to read), but ...
EDIT: OK, sigh, I have made a final stab at making my score correct. It is attached (the whole score). With the exception of bar 58, which I just don't know how to fix, I have removed ALL rests and used dots and tied notes in their place, while also keeping the pedal marks throughout. Open and play the score in MuseScore.
If this is still NOT correct, then I give up!!!!! I honestly do. I am not selling any of my music to publishers and this is really taking the enjoyment out of composing music, so ....
In reply to This is now really getting… by fsgregs
Marc's handout only recommends that dotted rests should be avoided. It does not say that dotted notes should be avoided.
Your latest picture, with no rests, looks good to me.
I would've thought that a general rule would be: only use rests when you want to indicate silence.
In reply to This is now really getting… by fsgregs
I am sorry this is so frustrating to you! But if it's any consolation, your last example in the post to which I'm responding (the one starting "this is now really getting on my nerves") is perfect. Completely clear and correctly notated. So is the first example - see below.
Only the middle example is problematic, for exactly the reasons I've already stated. Your intentions there might be clear to you, but it's a mixed message to the reader, and pianists will have to decide which of your two notations - the rest or the pedal - they will need to ignore. As an experienced professional pianist, I'd be more likely to honor your notes and rests and ignore your pedaling, because I'm completely accustomed to providing my own pedaling (most music doesn't show explicit pedal throughout). And I'm pretty confident other experienced pianists would say the same - we'd mostly ignore your specific pedal markings and do what feels more natural to us, same as we do in most music. Pedal markings are usually seen as "suggestions" at best, notes and rests are taken more literally.
So, regarding that first example - as I said, it's actually fine despite the rests. But I think I see why you might be confused as to how that could be OK if the second is not. It's actually quite simple. It's not that rests can't be used in passages with pedal - it's that you need to lift the pedal at the start of the rest to keep any preceding notes from bleeding longer than you've notated. In the first example, you've correctly notated the lift, so all is well. Whatever note the RH was playing previously, we won't hear that any more because we're lifting the pedal at the start of the rest. Whereas in the second example, there is no corresponding lift of the pedal to coincide with the rests - at least, not that you've notated. So in both of these cases, the note on 1 and on 2& is going to be sustained right through the rests unless the pianist does what I think most experienced pianists will do - ignore your written pedal marking and lift on beats 2 & 3 to prevent those notes from sustaining longer than you've notated them. We'll pedal as we see fit in order to honor the actual notes and rests you've written.
As for dots, I have no idea where you got the idea that I said that dots are to be discouraged in simple time. But I assure you I have never said any such thing. I'm guessing I said something else that you misunderstood (like, no dotted rests in simple time, or don't start a note - dotted or otherwise - that will obscure beat 3). If you can find the statement in question and pos a link, I'm happy to clarify.
In reply to I am sorry this is so… by Marc Sabatella
Well, I confess I got it wrong. In the references I saw, including yours, they indeed said don't use dotted "rests", not just dots, in simple time. I am sorry for the confusion.
Regarding the rest of my issues, I am at least glad to see that if I want, I can use Rests in a piano piece instead of tied notes and dots, even if I am using a pedal to sustain the left hand notes. I realize the reader will then have to decide if I want a silence in the right hand but a sustain in the left hand, or if the rest in the right hand means they have to life their foot and cause a true silence in both left and right hand notes at that spot. Obviously, if I really want the left hand notes to sustain through the measure, a pedal mark is useful. I grasp that to be truly correct, I should notate the right hand as you suggested, with dots, ties, beamed notes, etc. I will try to do so in the future.
Since I finally understood most of your points, I will not give up. I will simply pay more attention to this elaborate discussion when composing new music. Obviously, if the instrument is not a piano and there is no pedal, then what I learned about rests and beat counting will allow me to improve the writing of those other instruments.
Thank you for your patience and understanding!!! (smile)
Frank
In reply to Well, I confess I got it… by fsgregs
I would still say, "if you don't want silence then don't use rests". Yes, your rhythm is correct but your intent is ambiguous. As I understand it, the convention for most scores is: rest => silence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_(music)
"A rest is a musical notation sign that indicates the absence of a sound."
In reply to Well, I confess I got it… by fsgregs
Glad to hear it!
In reply to This is now really getting… by fsgregs
Your edited version looks good all around :-) Regarding measure 58, I think the issue here is that the Ab quarter note, you really mean to have on beat 3 as you have it the rest of the piece, not one thirty-second after beat 3. So replace the thirty-second rest with a dotted quarter Ab and all is well.
Please don't give up! Making your music look good can be part of the joy! And it's not just about publishers - it's about the joy that comes from a job well done, and the even greater joy that comes from hearing an actual pianist perform your piece as you intended :-)
In reply to Your edited version looks… by Marc Sabatella
You are correct regarding measure 58. When I moved the note to a 1/4 note on beat 3 and added a dot to it, the rests disappeared and it sounded fine. Thanks for the tip. It worked fine.
My problem with the way this is all being done perhaps has to do with amateurs vs professionals. When I look at a score filled with dots and tied notes, it sure looks confusing as to timing. I know dots carry sound and rests do not, but I have to count a dot as a 1/2 beat mentally, & ignore all tied notes. Conversely, seeing clean plain rests in the positions of each beat helps me more simply count beats. I don't have to ignore anything.
Regarding my feeling that dots are to be avoided in simply time, I will find the references in a few hours and post the answer as a reply to your other post. At the moment, I have to go pick up groceries (COVID issues).
In reply to You are correct regarding… by fsgregs
I do think that there is an element of "amateurs" and "professionals" involved here, (several of us amateurs have demonstrated technically incorrect notation which we find easier to read), but if we want our uploads to be most easily understood then trying to follow the standardised, ("professional"), notation makes good sense.
We will also benefit in being able to follow other users' uploads that do stick to the standard.
It's quite possible that, whilst my incorrect syntax might be easier for me, it could make things harder for you. Your syntax of non-silent rests certainly confused me.
I have started to learn how to count beat properly and to read those pesky dots & ties, (bought a book with some good online training videos), and I can honestly say that it does get easier with practise.
In reply to You are correct regarding… by fsgregs
It's not just about amateurs vs professionals. Most amateurs read music the same way most professionals do, they just aren't as good at it, and also are not as good at verbalizing the rules for how music is written.
While you personally might find ties confusing, and one or two others on this thread do as well, I assure you, that's not true in general, for amateurs or professionals. Using them as directed really makes music easier to read for almost everyone. I work with literally thousands of musicians - young students, adult students, amateurs, professionals - and what I am describing here really is virtually universal.
In reply to It's not just about amateurs… by Marc Sabatella
I didn't mean amateurs/professionals in a literal sense but rather as differentiating those who are using a simplified/personalised notation vs. those who are using the standard. I fully accept that you are describing a virtually universal standard to which us "amateurs" should aspire.
I was just sympathising with Frank's sentiment as I can understand what he means. Hopefully, as he and I take on board what we've learned, we will both be on our way to joining the "professionals", i.e. capable of reading and writing standard rhythm notation.
In reply to Thanks again. Regarding my… by fsgregs
Personally, I think any pianist would understand that I am not expecting a silence when encountering a rest (because of the pedal), but to use the treble notes & rests as indicators of when to play or not play the melody.
If you don't want silence then why bother having the rests? Just make the notes in the upper stave longer and say "goodbye" to the rests. Your notes already tell the player when to play the melody.
Your score says, "rest from playing", but you seem to mean, "don't rest from playing". You can't have it both ways: to-play or not-to-play are mutually exclusive options.
In reply to Hi Frank, There is no such… by frfancha
I understand, but I thought dots and double dots are hard for a musician to pace/get the rhythm of, and were to be discouraged in simple time. I thought from what I read/learned that visible rests were preferred. Is that not true?
In reply to I understand, but I thought… by fsgregs
Nothing we’ve said here suggests eliminating dots. Of the contrary, of the eight fundamental rhythms we keep talking about here, two of them include dots. Also, as explained previously, dots and rests are entirely different things. A dot says to make a sound, a rest says not to. They are in no way interchangeable - they mean entirely different things.
Double dots are another matter, those are generally frowned upon these days although there are some exceptions. Also, dotted rests are not used in simple meter. This follows directly from those four rules I posted earlier.
In reply to OK, I have been following… by fsgregs
If you check the four simple rules I posted, you’ll see both of the staves break rule #1 right off the bat - best three is not shown. You need to fix that first, then you can see if there are other issues that still remain.
In reply to If you check the four simple… by Marc Sabatella
AGHHH! This is getting really ...... (no comment)!!!!!
OK, I think I fixed the test score (see new attachment) to make sure all measures have the 3nd beat notated with either a note or rest. I also think everything else is OK, but I have 2 questions:
When a measure plays a whole note(s), then a silence on the next measure, what is the convention? Do I automatically copy the 1st measure into the 2nd and add a tie, or can I leave the 2nd measure blank with just a whole rest? Here is a screenshot of both options:
Can a new measure start with a rest in beat 1, or must I always add a note & tie from the previous measure's note? See screenshots:
Thanks for your help!
Frank
In reply to AGHHH! This is getting… by fsgregs
In your first example, you are showing two different things. The first has the pianist hold the chord for eighth beats, The second has him or her hold the chord for only four beats, then rest for four. Either is completely valid notation, but they mean two different things. So you pick the one you mean.
In the second example, measures can start with rests, sure. But again, your two examples show different things. One has the pianist still sustaining the notate on beat one, the other has him or her resting. it's two different things. both valid, bout you need to decide if you want the piano to play or to rest.
That said, in your attached file, the first measure shows the problem I mentioned from the beginning of the thread - it really makes no sense to ask a pianist to play a note followed by a rest if the pedal is down. You do that pretty much throughout. Pretty much all those rests should be turned into ties. Because although it means something different to ask a pianist to hold a note versus rest, you're asking the pianist to do the impossible here - to produce silence on beat three, even though the pedal is down. If you want silence, don't hold the pedal. if you want the note to sustain, notate it that way, with a tie.
Beyond that there's still no note or rest on beat 3 in measure 18 or 19. See my other comment - both of those should really just be grace notes and not notated using thirty-second notes at all. But if you do notate with thirty-second notes - as an academic exercise, not to give an actual pianist to play - you'd still need to show beat 3.
In reply to Indeed, the modern concept… by Marc Sabatella
Re: Marc Sabatella • Jan 14, 2022 - 20:19
Indeed, the modern concept of meter started to become standard right around his time.
Can you recommend any books on the history of music theory and notation development?
In reply to Can you recommend any books… by yonah_ag
I don’t know any books on the history of notation specifically, but there are any number of the history of Western music in general that could be worth reading. Probably more to the point, though, would be something like the New Harvard Dictionary of Music. It’s got a bit of everything, like a whole set of college textbooks all condensed into a single volume.