Double Bass Is there a "right" way to express this rhythm in music notation?

[PauFerro]

I was transcribing a song (am largely self-taught in music notation). I notice there are two ways to express the following rhythm. Are there rules for which example is the "right" way to notate the attached rhythm? Or is it a matter of preference for the transcriber?

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

They are equivalent, in my opinion. I have a slight preference for the beaming in Example 2, but many prefer the notation exemplified by Example 1.

 

[jtrom]

I think 1 is “easier” or “clearer” to read but they’re both right.

There’s likely a genre specific preference.

 

[longfinger]

Example 2 is better for me. Easier to read, way easier to sight-read. The "rhythmic cell" of beat 2 is clearly visible. The short note on the first C, tells the story that the rest in example 1 tells. Audio performance practice will fill in the exact timing.

There is an option of Example 3.
Still beam the rhythmic cell of beat 2, while using the 16th note rest.
Easy to do by hand writing, not sure of the software you use allows it easily, or allows it at all.

 

[elberon]

Beaming according to the beat is the standard procedure and the way it’s taught in most, if not all, university music theory classes in the first couple years.

Determine the beat in the given time signature and beam all the durations of that beat together if possible. In simple time like 4/4 beam within the quarter note. In a compound meter like 6/8 you’d beam according to the dotted quarter. This is why the second example might be clearer, because the beaming pattern make the beat more easily distinguishable.

 

[PauFerro]

Guys -- thanks. I have a basic question though -- what is meant by "beaming"?

 

[CFIrwin]

I'd do it like this...best of both worlds and easiest to read.

 

[CaseyVancouver]

That’s the lines.
The number of beams is equal to the number of flags that would be present on an unbeamed note.

 

[PauFerro]

I checked artificial intelligence and it says that beaming refers to the grouping of stems of notes with horizontal lines. I believe there is a setting somewhere in Finale 25, that I use, that could make mine look more like CFIrwin's above, but I'm not sure how to do it yet.

 

[SteveCS]

I was transcribing a song (am largely self-taught in music notation). I notice there are two ways to express the following rhythm. Are there rules for which example is the "right" way to notate the attached rhythm? Or is it a matter of preference for the transcriber?

View attachment 5410236

I say they are not the same. In the first, the second 1/16 gets full value, as does the 1/16 rest. In the second, the values depend on the 'style', interpretation or 'form' of the staccato, which might well be little more than a percussive thump.
YMMV.

 

[Steve Freides]

+1 to @CFIrwin's version.

Also worth mentioning is the convention that, in 4/4 time, you don't write a single note whose value crosses the beat 2-3 boundary. You've observed that - I can't think of how you wouldn't in this instance, anyway - but worth mentioning this "rule" IMHO. It's OK to write a simple passage as quarter, half, quarter, but for anything more complex, it's really weird to read if you can't easily see where beat 3 lies.

OK, so maybe it's not worth mentioning ... But it is a real notational convention.

-S-

 

[notabene]

I was transcribing a song (am largely self-taught in music notation). I notice there are two ways to express the following rhythm. Are there rules for which example is the "right" way to notate the attached rhythm? Or is it a matter of preference for the transcriber?

View attachment 5410236

for me, 2 was instantly internalized. 1 required a moment's thought.

 

[elberon]

In my copy of Finale 26.1*** I click on the "document" drop down window, then click "document options" and then "beams" to select how finale will apply beaming to groups of notes.

 

[MuseChaser]

Anyone who routinely reads music wouldn't have an issue with either example, so I'd chalk it up to engraver's preference.

 

[elberon]

I routinely read music, very often complex music daily, and I would absolutely have a preference for how the music is notated in Pauferro's example #2 because the quarter note beat is more clearly defined in the given meter. Also note how the tie is used to distinguish the end of beat 2 to the beginning of beat 3. At least the first example also uses a tie.

This way of notating (in example #2) is immensely helpful when sight-reading highly syncopated music whether it's funk, modern classical, or jazz. Just try to sight-read tricky music with no ties or beams (all separately flagged note values without the beat as a "container"). Good luck with that. Look at the way opera vocal parts with librettos are notated, it's a nightmare to read rhythmically.

 

[the_Ryan]

I was transcribing a song (am largely self-taught in music notation). I notice there are two ways to express the following rhythm. Are there rules for which example is the "right" way to notate the attached rhythm? Or is it a matter of preference for the transcriber?

View attachment 5410236

Version 2 or CFIrwin’s would be my preference. As mentioned before, in some contexts a staccato 1/8 note would be performed differently than a 1/16 note followed by a 1/16 rest (staccato just means “shorter than full value”, but how less long the note is is dependent on tempo, genre, etc.), so it’s kind of up to you as to which you’d prefer. For syncopated 1/16 or 1/8 note rhythms I like the beaming to still be grouped over the rest as if there was a note there (so groups of 4 in 4/4 or groups of 3 for 1/8 notes or groups of 6 for 1/16s in 6/8, 9/8, 12/8, etc.) just so that where the beat falls is clear to me as the reader.

As an aside and not to start a whole debate, but take anything ChatGPT or any other AI chatbot says with several grains of salt.

 

[the_Ryan]

I routinely read music, very often complex music daily, and I would absolutely have a preference for how the music is notated in Pauferro's example #2 because the quarter note beat is more clearly defined in the given meter. Also note how the tie is used to distinguish the end of beat 2 to the beginning of beat 3. At least the first example also uses a tie.

This way of notating (in example #2) is immensely helpful when sight-reading highly syncopated music whether it's funk, modern classical, or jazz. Just try to sight-read tricky music with no ties or beams (all separately flagged note values without the beat as a "container"). Good luck with that. Look at the way opera vocal parts with librettos are notated, it's a nightmare to read rhythmically.

God I’m so glad the “no beaming when the syllable changes” practice fell out of favor for vocal notation, for arias or lieder that notation SUCKS to read (recits are a bit different since the printed rhythm is more of a general suggestion).

 

[longfinger]

If example 1 is the "real rhythm", then the version of CFIrwin is the most accurate and legible. Example 2 is technically different as performance practice could change the interpretation of the dot shortening. (However if transcribing an aural tradition, example 2 might be the most accurate because the precision of ex 1 may make it less accurate.)

I did this in Finale easily. Basically, write in C E E E tied to E, beaming with 16th notes will happen automatically. Then switch the 2nd E to a rest and the beaming stayed put.

 

[elberon]

Longfinger’s ex. “nests” rests within a beamed beat. Best of both worlds, just like CFIrwin’s handwritten ex. with the exception of the hanging sixteenth-note beam.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I was always taught that the default length of a staccato note was half the length of the original note value it was attached to, so the difference between a staccato 8th and a 16th note and a 16th rest is the same between six and a half dozen. I do really like beaming the entire beat together for clarity, no matter whether that beat contains a staccato 8th or a 16th note and 16th rest.