Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 13.03.2009 dhbailey wrote:
Surely we could put together an equal and opposing number of position
papers on the use of dotted rests being A) clear to the performer; B)
as easy to read with a little practice as any other facet of notation
is for those who aren't comfortable with them; C) more helpful in
terms of indicating the phrasing than using undotted rests to equal
the same rhythmic space.
I am sure you can, but you will find that none of the big European
publishers (I cannot say about American publishers) will ignore these
conventions. No, there isn't a rule book, and things will change. But
there is also no use in everyone having their own rules.
I can tell you that dotted rests in some of the badly prepared computer
editions I have used are very confusing to a lot of conventionally
trained orchestral musicians. Add to that bad lighting in the opera pit
and a dot is easily overlooked.
While I can easily accept your point concerning what
publishers want (which is what engravers need to provide),
I'm not so sure about your point regarding a dot being
easily overlooked -- a dot after a rest is the same size as
a dot after a note, and nobody says not to use dotted notes
in music to be played in a badly lit pit. While it could be
argued that holding the dotted note is made a bit more clear
by the presence of the following note(s), the same should be
possible with a dotted rest.
The ease of seeing the dot is equally easy or difficult when
following a note or a rest -- what a publisher will accept
and what the musicians will complain about, however are
different things and are issues which I agree engravers need
to take into account when preparing music for printing.
--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
