At 8:43 AM +0000 5/02/02, David H. Bailey wrote: >Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > >>At 10:08 PM +0000 5/01/02, David H. Bailey wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >> >>Yet you never see 1/4 note, 1/2 rest, 1/4 note. >> > >Which is really curious because you often see 1/4 note, 1/2 note, 1/4 note. > >There seems to be no real "rule" which is always followed. In the >case of the 1/2 rest for beats 2 and 3 I can understand that people >are trying to show the middle of the measure (in 4/4) yet that >desire to show the middle of the measure is lacking when they use a >1/2 note instead of a rest. > >Go figure!
The rule I learned is not to syncopate rests. 1/4 1/2 1/4 is fine for notes, but not for rests because the 1/2 rest would be syncopated. The other rule I learned about when to show a subdivision (like the 3rd beat in a bar of 4/4) is always show groups of 4 of the smallest subdivision in the measure. We don't need to see the 3rd beat in this example because the smallest subdivision is 1/4s, and we only need to be able to see the first of 4. If the measure had 1/8ths, then we would have to be able to see the 3rd beat. If the measure had 16ths, then we would have to see every beat. The non-syncopated rest rule supercedes the above rule. That's how I learned it, and teach it. But as I pointed out before, Clinton Roemer seems to allow an exception for dotted eighth rests that he disallows for other rest values. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
