Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
How should I annotate 2 rests in a row
- Thread starter pmatz2
- Start date
Your understanding about back to back rests is false.
Yes, there are rules about how to do it, but no, it is not in any way "bad form" to do it, in and of itself. In fact, it's necessary in a vast majority of scores, IME.
Example 2 is not simply a different way of notation; it's a different phrase – i.e. it's quite literally not the same thing as the others, when played/heard. A staccato quarter note does not sound the same as an eighth note followed by an eighth rest.
I also wouldn't beam the two eighth notes in examples 1 and 3. The beamed eighth notes imply a phrasal and/or rhythmic connection between the two eighths. However, it appears that the first eighth completes the phrase that starts the measure, and the second eighth is the first note in the next phrase.
Bottom line:
1. Example 2 is a different phrase than examples 1 and 3.
2. Neither example 1 nor example 3 are correctly notated.
3. Of example 1 and example 3, example one is the closest to being correct. Only the beamed eights are incorrect.
Yes, there are rules about how to do it, but no, it is not in any way "bad form" to do it, in and of itself. In fact, it's necessary in a vast majority of scores, IME.
Example 2 is not simply a different way of notation; it's a different phrase – i.e. it's quite literally not the same thing as the others, when played/heard. A staccato quarter note does not sound the same as an eighth note followed by an eighth rest.
I also wouldn't beam the two eighth notes in examples 1 and 3. The beamed eighth notes imply a phrasal and/or rhythmic connection between the two eighths. However, it appears that the first eighth completes the phrase that starts the measure, and the second eighth is the first note in the next phrase.
Bottom line:
1. Example 2 is a different phrase than examples 1 and 3.
2. Neither example 1 nor example 3 are correctly notated.
3. Of example 1 and example 3, example one is the closest to being correct. Only the beamed eights are incorrect.
Last edited:
Of those, I would choose number 1. But if I were notating it I’d choose none of those - I’d do the 8th note, then quarter note rest, then 8th note, but with the 8th notes not beamed. So number 3, but not beamed. It doesn’t look right beamed, and is not how I expect to see that rhythm notated. And I agree that number 2 is not equivalent to the others.
Last edited:
Definitely picture 2. Or as written in post 17. I think those two are the only ‘correct’ options.
I do sight read, and of your three options I'd only want to see number 1. Number 2 doesn't mean the same thing (although in practice it could sound pretty much the same), and number 3 is harder to read.
But I think the easiest to sight read is the suggestion from @Febs:
saying a staccatto 1/4 note is the same as a 16th not doesnt sit right with me. 1 or 2 works for me, depending on what the note on beat 3 is actually supposed to be.
For readability, #2. But that depends on the musical phrase - that is, if Beat 3 is part of a phrase, along with the upbeat of 4 and into the next measure, then #1 would be better. Compound rests are OK for experienced players. If I saw #1, and I never heard the passage, I would look ahead to see if there is something in the next measure that warrants those 2 eighth rests together. But if I saw #2, and the staccato dot above beat 3, I would get a better feel of how to interpret the passage. I guess it's from years of reading R&B - I would assume the upbeat of 4 is part of the next phrase - a pick up.
Last edited:
What is up with those rests after the quarter note in measure 32? A mistake possibly? Why not use a quarter rest? The double-sixteenth rests in measure 31 make a little more sense since they help you with counting the six-tuplet (or whatever it's called). Measure 32 looks like an error to me.
FullumMusic
Commercial User
- Oct 13, 2022
- 2,008
- 5,683
- Disclosures
- Audio/Music software developer, contracted with a company you've heard of and deving my own stuff.
I'm reading #1 as:
- Start the note on the 3; stop on the And of 3.
- Start the note on the And of 4; stop on the 1.
I'm reading #2 as:
- Staccato hit on the 3 with "no length" beyond the thump of the staccato hit.
- Start the note on the And of 4; stop on the 1.
They will sound essentially the same at faster tempos, and very different at slower tempos.
- Start the note on the 3; stop on the And of 3.
- Start the note on the And of 4; stop on the 1.
I'm reading #2 as:
- Staccato hit on the 3 with "no length" beyond the thump of the staccato hit.
- Start the note on the And of 4; stop on the 1.
They will sound essentially the same at faster tempos, and very different at slower tempos.
A reminder: "Staccato" doesn't mean "make the note as short as you possibly can." ("Staccatissimo" would be closer to that.) It really just means "make it short enough to separate it clearly from the following note." This is why, in practice, a staccato quarter note often sounds little if at all different from an eighth note followed by an eighth rest, and not just at fast tempos, either. And why the default shortening in music notation programs is 50%. Shortening by 50% is by no means any kind of absolute rule, but it does often serve as a useful rule of thumb. Especially because, IME at least, staccato dots are usually applied to nothing longer than a quarter note.
You'd have no need to put a staccato dot on, say, a whole note, because it would be so easy to specify the exact length you wanted by other means.
You'd have no need to put a staccato dot on, say, a whole note, because it would be so easy to specify the exact length you wanted by other means.
Yeah I hear that, but I think in practice a staccato is typically shorter than 50%, regardless of what notation programs do. For me, notating music is an art not a science, and it’s about conveying an intention. The staccato quarter note and 8th note may or may not be performed differently, but for me, writing using a mixture of the two could imply a difference between the two.
Another way to describe it is "detached". I had also forgotten staccato may also indicate to play lightly, distinct from the wedge shaped marker that indicates emphasis.
I'm not sure how you would "detach" a note if another note doesn't follow, in this case on the next down beat. With that in mind, I'm now leaning away from 2 and more toward 1 but without the bar as others have suggested.
Using staccato as an indication of detachment makes more sense with it has an immediately following note to detach from, though I'm sure it can often be found without a following note.
I don't know about "typically"--sometimes or often, possibly. It would depend to an extent on the instrument and the context. For a violinist, maybe shorter than 50%, in large part because notes on a violin decay very quickly when not excited by bowing. For a bass guitarist, possibly more often closer to 50%. Then again, the music you're playing and the tempo could play roles. If you're playing Tower of Power covers, you might make your staccati shorter and tighter than usual, whereas if you're emulating a tuba in the pit band for Sound of Music, you might let your staccati be a hair longer.
Yeah, I can’t really agree with defining it as simply detaching it from the following note - as you say, if there is no following note then staccato would be meaningless. If I’m reading a score with a mixture of staccato quarter notes and 8th notes followed by 8th note rests, I’m thinking ‘why have they written it like that?’. It would make me think they intended there to be a difference between the two, and I’d probably conclude they wanted the staccato one shorter (even though writing a staccato 8th note would be a much better way of showing that).
I’m sure it depends on the instrument, but on the piano, and on woodwinds I would certainly play a staccato quarter note shorter than 50%. Staccato tends to imply particular techniques (on those instruments at least), rather than just making it detached.
i voted "other" and can only go with @Febs:
i see/hear the argument for exceptions based on "intent," but 'best practices' makes febs' example a common, acceptable, expected notation for the OP's query.
i see/hear the argument for exceptions based on "intent," but 'best practices' makes febs' example a common, acceptable, expected notation for the OP's query.
You're quite right about other instruments. However, we are primarily, or in many cases exclusively, bass guitarists on this side of the forum!
I don't believe that any special techniques are implied for staccato on bass guitar that are distinct from any technique(s) you might use just to shorten a note.To go back to the OP for a minute: Why example #1 seems better than #2 to me (though I wouldn't find #2 problematic to render) is that one of the reasons you might use staccato dots is to avoid sticking rests between notes you want to separate (or "detach") from each other. But if if you've already started sticking rests between the notes, as is the case in #2, why stop halfway? Might as well finish the job!
It's from a professionally transcribed bass-lines from a Bass Guitar magazine (France.)
Now, about that M31.
It's only my speculation.
When one is transcribing a complicated instrument (bass guitar) line with some notation app/software, sometimes is just much easier (and faster) just to add a "strange" rest even if it does not look attractive.
