notation rule question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

notation rule question

karol
Hi,

I have question that is not related directly to lilypond. It refers to notation rules. How to divide a long note that starts at first half-beat in 4/4:

r8 c8 ~ c2.

or

r8 c4. ~ c2

?

If both are OK, then which one do you prefer? I couldn't find such rhythm in hand engraved scores. Perhaps I should look at music written in 19th century and later, but I simply have no time.

Karol



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

David Kastrup
"Karol Majewski" <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I have question that is not related directly to lilypond. It refers to
> notation rules. How to divide a long note that starts at first
> half-beat in 4/4:
>
> r8 c8 ~ c2.
>
> or
>
> r8 c4. ~ c2
>
> ?
>
> If both are OK, then which one do you prefer? I couldn't find such
> rhythm in hand engraved scores. Perhaps I should look at music written
> in 19th century and later, but I simply have no time.

Definitely

r8 c4. ~ 2

(yes, I'm pretending issue 3648 has already passed).  r8 c4. forms a
logical rhythmical subgroup, and so does the following half note.

In contrast, c2. would start at a somewhat syncopial time, suggesting a
stress that should not be there in the total note length.

--
David Kastrup


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Jay Anderson
In reply to this post by karol
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Karol Majewski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have question that is not related directly to lilypond. It refers to notation rules. How to divide a long note that starts at first half-beat in 4/4:
>
> r8 c8 ~ c2.
>
> or
>
> r8 c4. ~ c2
>
> ?
>
> If both are OK, then which one do you prefer? I couldn't find such rhythm in hand engraved scores. Perhaps I should look at music written in 19th century and later, but I simply have no time.



Divide it in the middle of the bar. 'r8 c4.~ c2' is preferred. This is
how I understand it for 4/4 time:
- Prefer to break a long note between beats 2 and 3.
- There are exceptions for extremely simple rhythms.
  * 'c1'
  * 'c4 c2.' (and 'c2. c4')
  * 'c4 c2 c4'
  * etc.

There is a lot of 19th century engravings which do not follow these
rules so don't always blindly trust old engravings. (One I see a lot
in the B&H Kling editions of the Mozart horn concerti is 'c4 c4. c8 c
c'. The dotted-quarter should really be split.)

The main goal is to ensure that the rhythm is understandable in
relation to the underlying beats involved. (See Gould 'Sustaining
notes across beats' for more information.)

-----Jay

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Urs Liska
In reply to this post by karol
Am 17.11.2013 22:39, schrieb Karol Majewski:

> Hi,
>
> I have question that is not related directly to lilypond. It refers to notation rules. How to divide a long note that starts at first half-beat in 4/4:
>
> r8 c8 ~ c2.
>
> or
>
> r8 c4. ~ c2
>
> ?
>
> If both are OK, then which one do you prefer? I couldn't find such rhythm in hand engraved scores. Perhaps I should look at music written in 19th century and later, but I simply have no time.
>
> Karol
>
>

I agree with the others that by default you would separate the
4/4-measure in the middle.
But you can't give an authoritative answer to your question without the
concrete musical context.

If the hypothetical full orchestra would play

r4 c2.\ff

your four trumpets would of course play

r8 c8 c2.

Urs

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Ryan McClure
In reply to this post by karol
Personally, I would do

r8 c~ c4 c2

My reason is because it is obvious where the beats are. While using

r8 c4. c2

makes it obvious too, I have found that there are less sight-reading errors when it is spelled out by beat rather than by syncopation. Again, that's my 2 cents...the 2 cents that I found in my car this morning. :P
Ryan McClure

Music Education Major, Shepherd University
Luna Music Engraving
www.lunamusicengraving.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

karol
In reply to this post by karol
And how to divide this:

c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4

or

c4 c8 c4. c4

Again - couldn't find such rhythmic structure in my collection of hand engraved scores.

--Karol



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by karol
"Karol Majewski" <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I have question that is not related directly to lilypond. It refers to
> notation rules. How to divide a long note that starts at first
> half-beat in 4/4:
>
> r8 c8 ~ c2.

Probably does not start at a good time for that.  If you tie together a
short and significantly longer note, you basically do it if the "real"
rhythm would be the long note and the short note just gives it an early
start.  Now without more context (like vocals, what went on before,
other voices), it is not clear at all that we have this kind of
situation.  Could be, but it's sort of improbable with just this
snippet: it's more likely that the weight is on the third rather than
the second quarter in 4/4.

> or
>
> r8 c4. ~ c2

I'd probably use that in most situations.  It has been suggested to
write r8 c~4~2 here, but I find that excessive (Jazz/Swing notation
tends to be annoyingly explicit in using ties in order not to have notes
start on anything but a beat compatible with their length).

Of course, you can also theoretically write r8 c2.. but indeed the
double-dotted notes tend to come either on the beat or at least are
preceded with the complementing on-beat short note.

But one could do this in, say, an arpeggiated situation with

<< { r4. c'8~2 } \\
   { r4 b2. } \\
   { r8 g2.. } \\
   { e1 }
>>

In this case one does not want to substructure the notes more than
necessary: the rhythmic structure is given by the rests and the chord is
basically rhythmically rigid apart from the onsets.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

karol
In reply to this post by karol
Thanks David, but you answered an old question :)

My current question is related to:


c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4

vs

c4 c8 c4. c4



--Karol



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

David Kastrup
"Karol Majewski" <[hidden email]> writes:

> Thanks David, but you answered an old question :)
>
> My current question is related to:
>
>
> c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4
>
> vs
>
> c4 c8 c4. c4

Jazzers would pick #1, Baroque composers #2.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Mike Solomon

On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:19 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Karol Majewski" <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Thanks David, but you answered an old question :)
>>
>> My current question is related to:
>>
>>
>> c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4
>>
>> vs
>>
>> c4 c8 c4. c4
>
> Jazzers would pick #1, Baroque composers #2.
>

I don’t recall seeing c4 c8 c4. c4 in any scores - I’d be curious to see who would use that and why.  The only use case I can think of off the cuff is a compound 3/8 + 5/8 time signature.  Otherwise, I think my brain would glitch if I didn’t see the beginning of the 2nd beat in common time, irrespective of the style.

Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

David Kastrup
Mike Solomon <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:19 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> "Karol Majewski" <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> Thanks David, but you answered an old question :)
>>>
>>> My current question is related to:
>>>
>>>
>>> c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4
>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>> c4 c8 c4. c4
>>
>> Jazzers would pick #1, Baroque composers #2.
>>
>
> I don’t recall seeing c4 c8 c4. c4 in any scores - I’d be curious to
> see who would use that and why.  The only use case I can think of off
> the cuff is a compound 3/8 + 5/8 time signature.  Otherwise, I think
> my brain would glitch if I didn’t see the beginning of the 2nd beat in
> common time, irrespective of the style.
Baroque and Renaissance stuff often does not even heed the bar line
regarding note lengths, and, as opposed to modern music, putting
excessive metric stresses to off-beat notes ruins the subtleties.  A
device quite often employed (and partly restricted to some voices) is
that of the hemiola.  Often with Bach it is not readily apparent in the
notation, but it emerges when you use the normal word stresses on
syllables.

Here are fragments from Dowland's "The Earl of Essex his Galliard" (and
yes, getting this flowing nicely was a bit of a challenge for me even
though I only had to play the violin).  The point here is not that you
can claim "one measure is this way, another is that, and those are
actually a hemiola".  The whole fun is with the ambiguity.  Using more
ties than absolutely necessary distracts from that by overemphasizing
the beats.

I think you'll find similar things with Bach's St John's and St Matthews
Passions IIRC.  And of course, Renaissance is full of it.




--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

earlofessex.png (25K) Download Attachment
earlofessex2.png (16K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Mike Solomon

On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mike Solomon <[hidden email]> writes:

On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:19 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Karol Majewski" <[hidden email]> writes:

Thanks David, but you answered an old question :)

My current question is related to:


c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4

vs

c4 c8 c4. c4

Jazzers would pick #1, Baroque composers #2.


I don’t recall seeing c4 c8 c4. c4 in any scores - I’d be curious to
see who would use that and why.  The only use case I can think of off
the cuff is a compound 3/8 + 5/8 time signature.  Otherwise, I think
my brain would glitch if I didn’t see the beginning of the 2nd beat in
common time, irrespective of the style.

Baroque and Renaissance stuff often does not even heed the bar line
regarding note lengths, and, as opposed to modern music, putting
excessive metric stresses to off-beat notes ruins the subtleties.

This is true.  In the example you sent at rehearsal B, the feel is 3/4 alternating with 6/8.  This is a common convention in Renaissance dance music.  As a result, the measure at B has a 3 feel and is written as such whereas the second measure has a 6/8 feel and has a dotted quarter.

What I was talking about in the previous e-mail was common time - I can’t think of a piece I’ve seen that uses the convention Karol was talking about.

A
device quite often employed (and partly restricted to some voices) is
that of the hemiola.  Often with Bach it is not readily apparent in the
notation, but it emerges when you use the normal word stresses on
syllables.

I’ve never seen a hemiola in 4/4 - the most frequent use of it I’ve seen is in 3/8 in Händel’s music.


Here are fragments from Dowland's "The Earl of Essex his Galliard" (and
yes, getting this flowing nicely was a bit of a challenge for me even
though I only had to play the violin).  The point here is not that you
can claim "one measure is this way, another is that, and those are
actually a hemiola".  The whole fun is with the ambiguity.  Using more
ties than absolutely necessary distracts from that by overemphasizing
the beats.

I completely agree - that is one of the interesting aspects of this music.
My response was purely based on the 4/4 time in the question, but you’re right that pieces in 3 often play on rhythmic ambiguity.

Cheers,
MS

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Christ van Willegen
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Mike Solomon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I’ve never seen a hemiola in 4/4 - the most frequent use of it I’ve seen is
> in 3/8 in Händel’s music.

I've seen a few in the Piano part of 'Oh Holy Night', which is in 12/8ths time.

Christ van Willegen
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Mike Solomon
In reply to this post by Mike Solomon

On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Phil Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Solomon
>
>> I’ve never seen a hemiola in 4/4 - the most frequent use of it I’ve seen is in 3/8 in Händel’s music.
>
> Something of a cheat, but check out Sea Fever, by John Ireland - the penultimate bar in each verse?
>

’tis cheating - I vote for taking away one point from John Ireland for violating the “Thou shalt not write a 12/8 piece in 4/4 unless said 12/8 piece is consistently swung and you are using the two eighths equals triplet quarter triplet 8th” commandment.

Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Brian Barker
In reply to this post by karol
At 13:46 23/07/2014 +0200, Karol Majewski wrote:
>And how to divide this:
>
>c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4
>
>or
>
>c4 c8 c4. c4

Elaine Gould says (on pp.166-7) "Note-values sustained across a beat
or half-beat must expose the beat structure of the bar", "Only very
straightforward rhythms may be written across the beat or half-bar",
and "In 4/4 it is the third (not the fourth) beat that should be
exposed". She gives as an example:
c8 c4.~ c8 c4 c8
and says "and not"
c8 c2 c4 c8

So she'd certainly pick your first option.

I trust this helps.

Brian Barker


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

janek.lilypond
In reply to this post by karol
Hi,

2014-07-23 18:07 GMT+02:00 Brian Barker <[hidden email]>:

> At 13:46 23/07/2014 +0200, Karol Majewski wrote:
>>
>> And how to divide this:
>>
>> c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4
>>
>> or
>>
>> c4 c8 c4. c4
>
>
> Elaine Gould says (on pp.166-7) "Note-values sustained across a beat or
> half-beat must expose the beat structure of the bar", "Only very
> straightforward rhythms may be written across the beat or half-bar", and "In
> 4/4 it is the third (not the fourth) beat that should be exposed". She gives
> as an example:
> c8 c4.~ c8 c4 c8
> and says "and not"
> c8 c2 c4 c8
>
> So she'd certainly pick your first option.

I second that.  Not earlier than on last Monday i was heavily confused
by the notation similar to the second one (i.e. without explicit 3rd
beat).  I believe that something like that makes sight-reading much
harder, unless someone is an expert in this kind of music.

best,
Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: notation rule question

Abel Cheung-2
In reply to this post by karol
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Karol Majewski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> c4 c8 c8~ c4 c4

Kurt Stone's book mentioned similar irregular divisions in pp. 114.

However, that would fall into two categories:

(1) If grouping is irregular, It would be denoted 8/8, and rhythm is
entirely determined by beaming.
(2) Composite meters like 3/8+5/8

Neither is commonly seen.

Abel


>
> Again - couldn't find such rhythmic structure in my collection of hand engraved scores.
>
> --Karol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



--
Abel Cheung
New GPG Key fingerprint: F43B 7F88 3D7B 4B58 928E  0151 EC2B E414 3B03 A8AC
Old GPG Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1  41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user