And what international convention adopted this "rule?" Which rule number is it, anyway, and what book can we llok it up in?
If we are not ever to syncopate rests, then I gather that the following: 16th-note/8th-rest/16th-note is never to be written? What's up with that, it's written all the time. I very rarely see that syncopation written 16th-note/16th-rest/16th-rest/16th-note. Wiz-of-Oz wrote: > The rule says: do not ever syncopate rests! > > so > [8.r][16] is correct > [16][8.r] is wrong, > it should be > [16][16r][8r] > > and in many cases > [8r][16r][16] makes things easier to read in orchestral context. > > regards, > Abel Korzeniowski > the Polish sixth lover > > > >>On 01.05.2002 7:49 Uhr, Ken Durling wrote >> >> >>>I've been following the convention (?) of using a dotted eighth rest >>>when a sixteenth falls on the last sixteenth of the beat and the rest >>>precedes it; and when the sixteenth note is on the first of the beat, >>>followed by rests, I've been using separate 1/16th and 1/8th rests. >>> >>>Someone is telling me that I should use dotted 1/8th rests in both >>>cases. Is there a right or wrong about this? Somewhere along the >>>line I learned that the way I'm doing it is the correct way. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
