How should I annotate 2 rests in a row

[SteveCS]

There's a time signature -- it's 10/16, so the 2+3+2+3 grouping is fine.
...

I'm off to Specsavers - it just looked like a C clef on my small screen!!

 

[pmatz2]

Yes, though actually, for a baiao, I'd more often prefer to do it in 2/4 and cut the note values in half: Thus, 16th rest, 8th note, 16th note, two 8th notes.



This scribe seems to have a pattern of grouping by single beats whenever possible, even though it's not really demanded by the common practice Febs (I think?) described earlier, which was to group by double the smallest note value in the measure. So I'm not surprised to see that tie in measure 7, even though I might have done it differently. It's certainly not hard to read.

I need to internalize that statement - "you need to show the beat that is two rhythm markings greater than the smallest rhythmic value in the measure"

 

[SteveCS]

...
but there should be some indication in the notation that they're on different strings.

One effective way I've seen of showing this is in the 'cello music. In the Prelude to Suite 1, for example, towards the end there is a section that alternates 1/16ths on open A and stopped notes including A, beginning half way through bar 33. The intent is that the duration of each note is actually equivalent to 1/8 - the open and stopped notes overlap:

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I need to internalize that statement - "you need to show the beat that is two rhythm markings greater than the smallest rhythmic value in the measure"

Richard Lindsey has offered to change the 10/16 time signature to 5/18 - just divide 10 and 16 in half.
Could you do the same with 6/8 and get the 3/4 time signature?

Is the following notation correct?

Are the following bars/measures notated correctly?

 

[SteveCS]

Is the following notation correct?

...

Nowhere close!

 

[Richard Lindsey]

I need to internalize that statement - "you need to show the beat that is two rhythm markings greater than the smallest rhythmic value in the measure"

Again, this is not an absolute rule but a common practice that works and is followed most of the time, but not necessarily all of the time.

IME the application of this practice can sometimes be affected by what's going on in the rest of the piece, not just the measure. For example, suppose you have a piece in 4/4 that's constant 16th notes. Right, so you typically beam those 4 at a time (a quarter note being two "levels" up from a 16th note). But then you hit a measure that's straight 8th notes, before going back to the constant 16ths. Some (many? but not all) scribes might then group those 8th notes two at a time (= quarter note), probably because all of those 16th have set up a kind of expectation for note groupings.

And there are other factors to consider. One is the general reluctance to carry notes across the midpoint of a measure--assuming the measure actually has a midpoint that can be felt, which it does in much 4/4. You can go against this practice with half notes and longer notes, but typically only if it starts on a beat. For example, in 4/4, you could have a dotted half followed by two eighths--that is, you don't have to write a half note tied to a quarter and then the two eighths. However, you would basically never write an eighth, then a dotted half, and then an eighth.

Essentially, it's about the goal of being clear where the notes fall and how long they last, without being so overly fussy that you make things harder to read and count.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Nowhere close!

Absolutely. Ideal for 6/8, strongly deprecated for 3/4.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Richard Lindsey has offered to change the 10/16 time signature to 5/18 - just divide 10 and 16 in half.
Could you do the same with 6/8 and get the 3/4 time signature?

No.

Is the following notation correct?
View attachment 5003123

No, not in 3/4. 3/4 is a simple meter with three main beats; 6/8 is a compound meter with two main beats. That said, there are polyrhythmic musics in which 3/4 can seem to be implied simultaneously with 6/8. And of course it's possible to temporarily superimpose a 6/8 feel over 3/4, or the opposite.

Are the following bars/measures notated correctly?

(1) yes; (2) I wouldn't; (3) yes; (4) absolutely not; (5) yes; (6) no; (7) I wouldn't.

View attachment 5003124

I would say so.

View attachment 5003128 View attachment 5003125

I wouldn't.

View attachment 5003121

(1) yes; (2) no; (3) yes, depending to a degree on context.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

(1) yes; (2) I wouldn't; (3) yes; (4) absolutely not; (5) yes; (6) no; (7) I wouldn't.

(7) is also correct. That half rest falls on the strong beat.

 

[pmatz2]

so B would be correct - even if there were 1/16 notes in the measures before and after this for example. Would be be considered easier to read?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

(7) is also correct. That half rest falls on the strong beat.

You could argue that. I still would prefer not to do it. The reason is that, to me at least, the half rest tends to connote (even if it doesn't specifically denote) half a measure, I suppose because so much of the Western music we play is based on 2 or 4. (The whole American naming convention of whole, half, quarter, eighth, 16th, etc is based on a default starting assumption of 4/4.) And of course two beats in 3/4 is not half a measure, it's two thirds of one.

There are other wrinkles regarding rests. One is that some traditionalists don't believe in using dotted rests at all. Instead of a dotted quarter rest, they would always write a quarter rest followed by an eighth rest. I don't subscribe to this myself, but it's out there.

Another wrinkle is that a whole rest actually is not always 4 beats (or 2 in cut time). It's common to use the whole rest for measures that are entirely empty even when you're not in 4/4 or 2/2.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

so B would be correct - even if there were 1/16 notes in the measures before and after this for example. Would be be considered easier to read?

View attachment 5003437

I would say so. I would prefer it myself. But either is readable. If you did a C with no beam between the 5th and 6th notes, that would be readable too.

 

[pmatz2]

I would say so. I would prefer it myself. But either is readable. If you did a C with no beam between the 5th and 6th notes, that would be readable too.

I tried Musescore won't allow it

 

[SteveCS]

I tried Musescore won't allow it

You do know MuseScore allows you to set/configure your own customised beaming/grouping 'rules'?

 

[Whousedtoplay]

The reason is that, to me at least, the half rest tends to connote (even if it doesn't specifically denote) half a measure

You have a lot of experience and (logical) knowledge (because of that experience.)
For others, there are some rules to be followed.

More examples for beginner musicians.

 

[Febs]

You have a lot of experience and (logical) knowledge (because of that experience.)
For others, there are some rules to be followed.

More examples for beginner musicians.
View attachment 5003637 View attachment 5003638

A and B: Yes
C - E: No

 

[pmatz2]

A and B: Yes
C - E: No

I have to go and clean up some of my transcriptions

 

[BaileyMan]

Those are beams, not ties, and if you were going to break the beams here, you'd simply show flags on the eighth notes:

View attachment 4999025

There are times when some people like to use stemlets, but I think they are disfavored generally and they're not necessary for a simple eighth note figure like this.

My reading skills are elementary. Never formally trained. But this is how I like to see it.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I have to go and clean up some of my transcriptions

Could you us tell the rule/s why you need to clean up your transcriptions?

Do you think that whole rest is correct?

 

[SteveCS]

Could you us tell the rule/s why you need to clean up your transcriptions?

Do you think that whole rest is correct?

View attachment 5004028

For the avoidance of doubt, yes it is.