The only exception is when you want to put fermata above a half rest in 3/4
(or respectively above a dotted half rest in 4/4),
IF other instruments have similar rhythmic content at the same time.
e.g.
staff 1: [4][2r+fermata]
staff 2: [4][2+fermata]
staff 3: [4][2+fermata]
with best regards,
A
At 08:04 pm +0200 02.05.2002, Wiz-of-Oz wrote:
>P.S. BTW you're not allowed to use dotted half rest in 4/4 and 3/4,
>nor a half rest in 3/4 (with only one exception).
What's the exception?
John
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.
Syncopation is a special musical device for marking a stress of otherwise unaccented
beat,
and as it is not possible to put an accent on a rest, you cannot notate rests
syncopated.
So as long as in 4/4: [4][2][4] is right for syncopated rhythm,
[4][2r][4] just does not make any sense (however ma
On Thu, 2 May 2002 20:04:26 +0200, you wrote:
I did an informal survey of about a dozen scores in my library this
morning - Bartok, Stravinsky, Berio, Ligeti, Britten - the vast
majority do not use dotted rests on syncopations. The only one I
found that did was Stravinsky, in the 4th Tableau of
At 7:26 AM -0700 5/02/02, Robert Patterson wrote:
>Christopher BJ Smith wrote
>>
>> Yet you never see 1/4 note, 1/2 rest, 1/4 note.
>>
>
>I went back last night and read the relevant passages in Read and
>Stone. (FWIW:
>Stone is the closest thing I know of to a manual of internationally accepted
At 8:43 AM + 5/02/02, David H. Bailey wrote:
>Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>
>>At 10:08 PM + 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 sy
At 7:46 AM -0500 5/02/02, Don Hart wrote:
>on 5/2/02 6:59 AM, Christopher BJ Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>>> 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
Christopher BJ Smith wrote
>
> Yet you never see 1/4 note, 1/2 rest, 1/4 note.
>
I went back last night and read the relevant passages in Read and Stone. (FWIW:
Stone is the closest thing I know of to a manual of internationally accepted
rules. It is the result of an international convention in
on 5/2/02 6:59 AM, Christopher BJ Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> 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
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> At 10:08 PM + 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:
>
At 10:08 PM + 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
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 t
on 5/1/02 5:49 PM, Wiz-of-Oz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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,
> Abe
At 10:05 AM -0500 5/01/02, Doug Auwarter wrote:
>on 5/1/02 5:11 AM, Christopher BJ Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> The way you are doing it is officially (according to what I learned)
>> correct, as your second example uses syncopated rests, which is a
>> no-no.
>>
>> For manuscript, I
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 didn't see anything specifically discussing this situation in Stone's
Music Notation in th e20th Century, but on page 112, in the example at
the bottom, he DOES use a dotted-8th-rest following a 16th-note to
complete beat 3 of the measure.
In the Norton Manual of Music Notation by George Heu
on 5/1/02 8:48 AM, Robert Patterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Concerning dotted 16ths, I believe one of the references is fairly clear about
> it. I know David Bailey said Gardner Read was silent, but I thought I
> remembered
> something in there about it nevertheless. If not there then in Ku
on 5/1/02 5:11 AM, Christopher BJ Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> The way you are doing it is officially (according to what I learned)
> correct, as your second example uses syncopated rests, which is a
> no-no.
>
> For manuscript, I have told my students to avoid dotted rests
> altogether,
Concerning dotted 16ths, I believe one of the references is fairly clear about
it. I know David Bailey said Gardner Read was silent, but I thought I remembered
something in there about it nevertheless. If not there then in Kurt Stone.
(Unfortunately those reference books are not here at this compu
On 01.05.2002 7:49 Uhr, Ken Durling wrote
> Hi all -
>
> 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'
At 10:49 PM -0700 4/30/02, Ken Durling wrote:
>Hi all -
>
>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 b
Gardner Read doesn't mention this situation in his book Music Notation.
Ted Ross doesn't show your specific example, either.
In my opinion the dotted rest should be used in both cases, since it
completes the beat clearly. If it is okay to use it where the rest
comes first, then it is okay t
Hi all -
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.
Someo
23 matches
Mail list logo
