How Do I Play/Count This?

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I trust your experience and background. Here's the other option. Still haven't seen it in many years (mostly band/big band notation).

View attachment 3213130

I did a BM and MM in Theory/Comp back in the 1980's and at that time, there were lots of notational conventions being modified and evolutions coming into play. My main composition teacher was a classically trained person but also had a big band background. He liked a notation almost like the one listed above, but with what Sibelius now calls "stemlets" added, like so:

(don't know why that screen shot came out so huge!)

Anyway, I found this the clearest way to notate things because it made the beats and subdivisions so visible.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

I did a BM and MM in Theory/Comp back in the 1980's and at that time, there were lots of notational conventions being modified and evolutions coming into play. My main composition teacher was a classically trained person but also had a big band background. He liked a notation almost like the one listed above, but with what Sibelius now calls "stemlets" added, like so:

View attachment 3218168

(don't know why that screen shot came out so huge!)

Anyway, I found this the clearest way to notate things because it made the beats and subdivisions so visible.

Finale can do it too, and I hate it. Unnecessary information that just makes it look like a mess. Luckily, it is never seen on good arrangements that are published through a decent publisher.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

You are of course welcome to hate it. I find it incredibly clear and impossible to misconstrue.

EDIT: Here is an article/blog about the subject of "to beam or not to beam":

To Beam or Not To Beam; That is the Question – OF NOTE

 

[SteveCS]

You are of course welcome to hate it. I find it incredibly clear and impossible to misconstrue.

EDIT: Here is an article/blog about the subject of "to beam or not to beam":

To Beam or Not To Beam; That is the Question – OF NOTE

Sorry Chris, but for me that lost credibility at the suggestion (in a reply to a question) that a staccato dot and duration dot can be used on the same note to simplify notation...

Quite how 'increase by 50% then shorten by some non-standard amount' is clearer than "play 1/16, off for 2 then play another one" is beyond me. In fact it's absurd, IMHO.

 

[Don Kasper]

I did a BM and MM in Theory/Comp back in the 1980's and at that time, there were lots of notational conventions being modified and evolutions coming into play. My main composition teacher was a classically trained person but also had a big band background. He liked a notation almost like the one listed above, but with what Sibelius now calls "stemlets" added, like so:

View attachment 3218168

(don't know why that screen shot came out so huge!)

Anyway, I found this the clearest way to notate things because it made the beats and subdivisions so visible.

Why are Beats #1 and #3 written differently? (same rhythm.)
I like the look of Beat 3 - The 2 beams (stemlets?) cover the complete beat.
Beat 1 - Not So Much. The 2nd beam (stemlet?) does not appear over the first 16th note/rest - falsely implying an "eighth-note or rest". This is ambiguous & confusing.
IMO.
Thanks.

 

[oZZma]

rhythmic monstrosity.
Is this even in 4/4?
insanely low tuning

mmmmmmmmmm

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Why are Beats #1 and #3 written differently? (same rhythm.)
I like the look of Beat 3 - The 2 beams (stemlets?) cover the complete beat.
Beat 1 - Not So Much. The 2nd beam (stemlet?) does not appear over the first 16th note/rest - falsely implying an "eighth-note or rest". This is ambiguous & confusing.

You are right - they should both look like beat 3. Since I don't compose often these days, I forgot where the "big picture preference" setting was for this in Sibelius, so I tried to throw together an example of the kind of notation my teacher liked quickly on a busy day and messed it up.I would go back and correct it but I chose to delete the file.

@SteveCS I would not put a staccato marking on a dotted note. At any rate, I don't like to argue about theory or notation, which is why I avoid this forum for the most part these days. I was just stating my personal preference appreciation for beamed 16th note groups with rests. They always help me see/hear the music way more clearly than the notation in the OP, which I find visually more confusing.

As to whether one or the other is "right" or "good" or "accepted", I don't worry about that. I'm just glad this kind of notation is an option in the current notation programs, which means it's far enough in the mainstream that I can choose it if I want. If I were writing for myself and wanted to ensure that I saw the music most clearly, I would write it that way.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Sorry Chris, but for me that lost credibility at the suggestion (in a reply to a question) that a staccato dot and duration dot can be used on the same note to simplify notation...

Agreed. It should only be used in compound meters (6/8 etc), but it's better to avoid it. (Beaming over rests inside a beat is almost always ok. I prefer the staccato 8th, 16th rest, 16th. Everyone knows that a staccato 8th is in effect a 16th in the styles I write. Even without the staccato, most players would play it short enough).

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

I would not put a staccato marking on a dotted note. At any rate, I don't like to argue about theory or notation, which is why I avoid this forum for the most part these days. I was just stating my personal preference appreciation for beamed 16th note groups with rests. They always help me see/hear the music way more clearly than the notation in the OP, which I find visually more confusing.

As to whether one or the other is "right" or "good" or "accepted", I don't worry about that. I'm just glad this kind of notation is an option in the current notation programs, which means it's far enough in the mainstream that I can choose it if I want. If I were writing for myself and wanted to ensure that I saw the music most clearly, I would write it that way.

I write a lot for bigger ensembles (big bands etc), and it's less about what I prefer, and more about what is the most effective and consistant way to present music to the players. It saves me a lot of time at rehearsals if I write in the "right/good/accepted" way, and it makes it a lot easier for the players to play it the way I want them to. (Re. slash chords). I sometimes wish the software had less of these options. I've seen too many bad examples by writers who don't care about (or understand) proper notation.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Sorry Chris, but for me that lost credibility at the suggestion (in a reply to a question) that a staccato dot and duration dot can be used on the same note to simplify notation...
View attachment 3218481
Quite how 'increase by 50% then shorten by some non-standard amount' is clearer than "play 1/16, off for 2 then play another one" is beyond me. In fact it's absurd, IMHO.

Steve,
Is that first note a dotted quarter note, which is equal to...

 

[SteveCS]

Steve,
Is that first note a dotted quarter note, which is equal to...

No, its supposed to be a dotted 1/8. I guess the whole idea was so alien to me my hand would not even let me write it!!

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I wasn’t sure of the style or tempo at first, and thought hey, that sounds like it could be a pretty funky bass line at 80 bpm, especially with those eights on the + of 4. But at 150, you really have to ask what the goal is. Because to me, it seems like it’s difficult just for the sake of being difficult/impressive. And that’s fine if that’s what you’re going for. Obviously all we can see is the rhythmic pattern and a tempo, so take that with a grain of salt.

Thanks for posting this though, it’s great to get a little snapshot of how other people write/learn/share musical ideas.

I would not have written/concocted an 8-measure pattern of the 16ths at 150BPM played on open (low) Eb string, but...
It’s not my band, I don’t play metal music, I don’t need to argue with an ambitious guitar player, etc...
I have tried that “pattern” on Guitar Pro at 150 and got only one question/opinion - why?

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I write a lot for bigger ensembles (big bands etc), and it's less about what I prefer, and more about what is the most effective and consistant way to present music to the players.

Here we agree.

I will add that I'm glad the programs have these options. One reason I like the beams over 16th rests in my current practice is that I get a lot of incoming freshmen at the U, both bassists and guitarists, who are poor readers, especially regarding rhythm (as I was when I first got to music school). When working on written funk parts, these students respond exponentially better to the beamed rhythms than the non-beamed ones. Perhaps my own (mild) functional dyslexia explains why I respond to them better than the "untethered rest" notation that is the traditional way of writing the same rhythms.

Another notational issue that I wonder about is with syncopated funk lines being written as ties over the beat as a convenience when the actual sound desired is a short note on the "a" of the preceding beat. This causes the player to either play the note too long or have to remember that it's short. I don't have an aneurism over it, but in effect it means that a player might get it right the second time through rather than the first. As a jazz player who is used to interpretive reading, I understand the concept and can live with it, but I'd be inclined to write the rests if I really wanted the line to sound that way.

 

[Lownote38]

If I understand correctly the way he produced this part by using a synth bass recording, it should actually just be written an octave up, since electric bass is a transposing instrument and sounds an octave lower than written.

Thank you!!! I was reading and reading this thread and waiting to see if anyone actually would say this! Yes. Music written for bass is notated an octave higher than the notes you are playing on your bass. That's the only thing wrong with the original notation. The rest is pretty easy if you can subdivide. Listen to some Tower of Power, Jaco, or Herbie Hancock to hear examples. It's not a difficult rhythm.

 

[BassChuck]

Thank you!!! I was reading and reading this thread and waiting to see if anyone actually would say this! Yes. Music written for bass is notated an octave higher than the notes you are playing on your bass. That's the only thing wrong with the original notation. The rest is pretty easy if you can subdivide. Listen to some Tower of Power, Jaco, or Herbie Hancock to hear examples. It's not a difficult rhythm.

Amen. This is really not that difficult and, with the exception of needing to be up an octave, there's nothing wrong with it. All the rest are on the beat. Grab an Adam Vitti book if you want to see some real stuff (and his second book is a mess of printing space problems). Or look at the bass part for "Mama Mia'... lots and subdivided stuff, and without the repetition.

 

[Bobro]

January, 'uary.. o fuq.. da fuq... but that tempo!

 

[SharkSandwich]

This might help. Not sure if the pdf will post but it is attached. I copied your op and just wrote in the counting.

Having a strong sense of the pulse will help get this down in no time.