=====================Han-Wen Nienhuys
When I read, I recognize a dotted note or rest as being one symbol.
Especially in ternary meters, the dotted symbol is a rhythmic unit.
Using them reduces the amount of symbols (and thus information) that I
have to cope with while reading.
-----------------------
Wha? The amount of information is the same. I think that is your point?
:-)
r4 + r8 is a rhythmic unit too, written differently.
Is a rest a symbol? Is a dot? Is a dotted rest a third symbol then? Do
not more symbols make reading more complex? Visually you have not
reduced the number of symbols with dotted rests, merely changed the
location of one of them. Dotted notes, on the other hand, absolutely
reduce the number of symbols, because no tie must be drawn, or read. In
your example you may in some sense give a slightly more symmetrical
appearance (not true symmetry--for that, you have to put the dot above
or below or inside or invent something) but you don't get much, one dot
for one rest, and you *pay* for it:
1) You have more dots.
2) The dots must fit into the hedge. Since the dotted rest is probably
on a strong beat, there is probably more stuff to squeeze it into. Do
you really want to ignore this?
3) You have another symbol in the vocabulary (which you have admitted),
which the reader must interpret.
Citing examples where there is nothing else in the measure, one can make
the case seem more plausible than it really is. What if you have three
parts on one staff? It's not worth it, IMHO, or in the opinion of the
engravers of the 18th or 19th or, until recently, 20th centuries.
===================
BTW, have a look in your copy of Read, page 115, 1st paragraph.
-----------
He's a real genius, ain't he?
I certainly owe H. Chlapik an apology for thinking that he must be an
academic, but I thought so because the example cited was very
hypothetical. I think I adequately demonstrated that decisions of that
sort with compound meter must be ad hoc. I'll bet that he says so, too.
Referring to Read, p118, ["In many instances the" *proper* division of
the measure] is not always that obvious. (I never really think of good
ol' 4/4 as being compound meter, but of course it is.) I doubt that
Chlapik ever engraved any flamenco. I haven't lately, but when I redo
it, it will be in 12/4, not 3/4, because I know better now, and it
*must* be 3/4 x 4, not 4/4 x 3. The latter would make no sense at all,
in that particular case, and counting 12 is a necessity.
I'm sure H. Chlapik's book is excellent. But he failed to invent or
promulgate a decent tuplet bracket, so he is not as good as those
Filipinos who autograph cheap sheet music. If you have a decent tuplet
bracket, and you *always* use it, you don't need a lot of fussy beaming
conventions. I had to do an 8th rest notehead because my software
wouldn't produce a bracket.
There is a 6plet passage in HVL Etude #8 which I play this way
(numbering notes, not beats):
1. beat accent
2. unaccented
3. 2nd triplet accent
4. accent off the triplet beat
5. 3rd triplet accent
6. unaccented
This gives it a very nice rhythmic complexity. Beaming could not
indicate this. Don't think for one second that this is impossible, or
even highly improbable. It's not even difficult.
It is important that reason be more important than authority in all this
stuff. Repeating the mistakes of the past does not promise a rosy
future.
Look at the example at the bottom of p321. The bar necessitates that,
but I hope that *within* a measure, as long as there were something in
another part on the same stave to render the strong beat in question
visible, the 5plet 8th note would not generate problems. This is a
tuplet issue that I meant to bring up. It is not something unlikely to
happen.
In Granado's Maja de Goya there is a 5plet written as 32nds where we
would write 16ths. You have to fix that sort of stuff doing urtexts.
There was a brief period where some wrote 5 for 8 instead of 5 for 4 the
way we do now. Guitar players have been busting their knuckles on that
for some time. They don't notice the rest.
Gardner Read, demonstrates his total ineptitude on pp111-112, because he
apparently did not know the rule that the dot should go *by_default* in
the space below for notes on lines with stems down where there are
multiple parts on a single staff. (regardless of the interval) See p308
example 18-19 to see dots incorrectly placed. He should have learned the
basics before writing the book, let alone getting into some of the
really crazy stuff in there. Some typesetters straightened me out. It is
not a minor matter in the guitar music that I read or write, and I
really appreciate your collective efforts in fixing that. In typesetting
software, that puts lilypond among the few good ones instead of among
the many bad ones. :-) :-) :-)
While you've got the Read out, see the tie on p318. Does it look that
awful? Oh, but that's not a slur! ;-)
================= Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Isn't this a non-issue anyway? It's for the user to decide whether
to type
r8.
or
r8 r16
?
-------------
Absolutely. Bless you. I'll stop killing babies. Or, better, get some
new babies to kill. :-)
--
Peace, understanding, health and happiness to all beings!
U U u ^^ ` 'U u U ''`'`
_-__o|oO|o-_|o_o_-_MN[-->mm@_-_--___o|o|oU_|o_o__lilypond
dave N Va USA David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
