At 12:51 PM -0700 5/02/02, Ken Durling wrote: >On Wed, 1 May 2002 19:37:59 -0400, it was said > >>I have to say, that the difference to my ear between an isolated >>on-beat eighth note and an isolated on-beat sixteenth note is too >>small for me to bother with, and so that notation rarely shows up in >>my work. I prefer to write eighth-note, eighth-note-rest rather than >>sixteenth-note followed by any combination of rests. > > >In principle I agree with you, although in general I'm not asking >about isolated (in the large sense) sixteenths, but long syncopated >passages. It seems to me that sometimes keeping a consistent note >value makes a phrase easier to read, so if there are a lot of >1/16-based syncopations, it looks better to keep the 1/16 even when it >falls on the beat and a staccato 1/8th would do as well strictly in >terms of sound.
Hmm, I'm talking about that situation as well, and am having trouble coming up with a figure that doesn't look easier to me with eighths on downbeats and sixteenths on upbeats (unless there is another sixteenth right away, obviously.) Can you supply an example? _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
