Hi Robert,
A quick question: A student of mine was told that seeing each 16th note in bar like the attached pic is clear:
My proposed solution was to use fewer 16th notes and rests for the same effect, e.g. an 8th with a staccato dot plus 16th rest and 16th note, all beamed together:
What’s your take on this? Thanks much.
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Sixteenths under a beamed group with rests as above are much easier to parse immediately. Your solution of a beamed 8th with a staccato dot followed by a sixteenth rest and a sixteenth note also works well. You might even consider a 16th note followed by an 8th rest, followed by a 16th note, all under a beam. The beam makes all of these very clear, and for all intents and purposes, they will all sound the same.
Clear beaming is essential for sight reading clarity, and in this case, there isn’t any question to its value, unlike a grouping where note stems don’t allow the beam to encase the grouping (certain note groupings that start with a rest, for instance).
But to another point, if you stop thinking about the beams themselves for a second, a key to clarity and readability is simplicity. You always want to try to find the least verbose way to express any musical idea. e.g. using less information to convey the same idea is almost always more clear. So when we look at your example and itemize its graphical components:
- 16th note
- Stem and flag
- 16th rest
- 16th rest
- 16th note
- stem and flag
- 16th note
- 16th rest
- 16th rest
- 16th note
- beam bracket
…we see that there are fewer discreet bits of information displayed in the second example, which means exactly the same thing. The brain processes a single rhythmic pattern for beat one instead of a number of individual objects, because the beam bracket frames the beat clearly.
Your example of an 8th note with a dot will be performed the same way, and also contains fewer components:
- 8th note
- staccato dot
- 16th rest
- 16th note
- beam bracket
In and of itself, the display of this one beat may not seem like it makes a lot of difference, but by using an overall strategy of simplifying how your music is displayed whenever possible, the job of sight reading becomes easier for the player.
robert
For argument’s sake – would a dotted eight with a staccato marking as the first note simplify it further?
Or is determining the length of a note of that length with a staccato more likely to confuse?
Hi Matt – yes, staccato dots can appear on dotted durational values, although it may be more common to see this in triple meters like 6/8. According to Elaine Gould’s book “Behind Bars” (pg. 116), care should be taken that the staccato dot appears smaller than the duration dot to avoid any confusion.
The reason I didn’t include this in my list of options above is for what Brad alludes to as a “contraption” in his comment above; since the dotted 8th is 3x, not 2x the duration of the sixteenth, it is very likely to be misinterpreted, and questions asked in rehearsal.
~robert
While I agree that the end result may sound the same, the results are not. If in a rehearsal situation, time is taken out to discuss what is truly meant by this staccato eighth note contraption, then the goal of rehearsal efficiency is spoiled. My vote is with the beamed sixteenth notes with the rests. It is immediately clear what is intended and can be sight read.
You have a valid point, Brad. As stated above:
“You always want to try to find the least verbose way to express any musical idea. e.g. using less information to convey the same idea is almost always more clear.”
It always makes the most sense to go a the solution that frames the rhythm the most clearly, with the fewest number of components that allow this. In the two example above:
8th note
staccato dot
16th rest
16th note
beam bracket
has no fewer components than
16th note
16th rest
16th rest
16th note
beam bracket
so the clear choice for me would be the beamed sixteenths with the rests, which is also your preference.
However, in the spirit of completeness, to the point of “how far should we simplify”, we should at least consider the option Rich brings up above, which contains one less component:
16th note
8th rest
16th note
beam bracket
This is fewer components, but is this more clear, or at least equally so to our previous preference? At this point, clarity and readability may be down to context and other things. All that to say, we always want to express rhythms in the clearest way possible for the player. Sometimes this means the fewest components, but not always.
why not beam sixteenths with an eighth note rest in between ?
Hi Rich – yes, that is a valid option, although for me personally, it is a context-dependent one.
“You might even consider a 16th note followed by an 8th rest, followed by a 16th note, all under a beam.”
I’ve included an image of this option, along with what I might consider associated caveats in my reply to Brad.
thanks,
~robert
I would highly avoid a 16th, 8th rest, 16th note configuration. That would be worse than employing a staccato mark. The rhythm in question is duple, and to be more specific, a variant of the 1, 4 pattern. With the 8th note rest, the first reading —and perhaps even subsequent readings for secondary school students,—will make it appear as some sort of triple figure. And indeed, even with the realization that it is duple, you still may get a triple feel from it. Maybe not. But why take a chance when there is a clear way to notate it in such a way that the brain will interpret it correctly?
One last thought:
• The primary function of notation should be clarity, not “the least number of notes.”
• Just because it is mathematically possible doesn’t necessarily mean it is the most clear.
• Hey, this doesn’t have to be theoretical—if you have a hankering to write out something a certain way, try it out on your performers. If it works, great! I just like to go with ways that will give the greatest chances of success. I just would rather spend 10 minutes of precious rehearsal time on something other than what should be an easy read.
As a musician (trombone player in all styles of music) I’d want to see this written as a ‘dotted eighth – sixteenth’ (with a beam of course)
Especially for sight reading in any style of music.
If the notes are to be played short, then put an articulation over each note.
As a composer/arranger and Sibelius user, I really appreciate your site! Thank you!
Thanks, Cam. I appreciate your take on this, and for the good words about the blog!
~robert
Consider the real duration of a note. In a ballad tempo a staccato note is much shorter than a 1/16th note. So a notation should represent the musical intention of the composer/improviser! Imho!
Excellent point, Wolfgang. The ideal solution for any use case is indeed always context dependent, and of course, in all cases, if you are *not* the composer or publisher (e.g. you are engraving music for someone else), the best you can do is to lobby for an edit if you see something notated in a way that might be considered incorrect. The final decision will be made by the composer or publisher.