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 >rules. It is the result of an international convention in the 1970s.) They >require careful reading, but the key point is that the rule against syncopated >rests applies to *beats*. Specifically, Read states that rests >should not span a >beat, and gives right and wrong examples. (4n, 8r, 4r is one of the wrong >examples.) > >Presumably, if the beat were in 8th notes, then 16th, dotted-8r >would be wrong. >But if the beat is in quarter (or larger) notes, then Read expresses no >preference. Indeed, in the chapter on accents, one of his examples shows 16th >notes followed by dotted 8th rests in a 4/4 context. Another example >shows 32nd >notes followed by 32r-16r, which is the opposite choice. > >Ross apparently places a similar emphasis on rests not spanning a beat. See p. >179, "...in simple time the half and quater rest are never dotted." Ross is >silent about smaller-valued dotted rests, and his examples do not >illustrate any. > >The bottom line is that the most accepted authorities I know of express no >preference about dotted eighth and smaller dotted rests, when the >beat is simple >time in quarter (or larger) note values. Any of 16n-8.r, 8.r-16n, 16n-16r-8r, >8r-16r-16n is equally acceptable. > >-- >Robert Patterson
That would agree with Roemer's examples as well. I stand corrected, and though I still prefer personally not to see dotted rests at all in simple time, I accept Read's and Ross' convention. Thank you for setting it straight. Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
