12/8 Question

Discuss the rules of notation, standard notation practices, efficient notation practices and graphic design.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

12/8 Question

Post by Fred G. Unn »

Ok, here's a situation that I'm always a little unclear on how to best notate. I've heard some say that one should never consolidate rests in a compound meter within the beat, so any combination of an eighth note and two eighth rests in a beat (of three) in 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, etc. should always be individually notated. Others, such as Gould in Behind Bars pg 163-164, and the Schirmer Manual of Style and Usage pg 74, state that it's ok to consolidate leading rests (within the beat) but not trailing rests.

Here's an example in 12/8. The first measure shows all rests, the second consolidates leading rests, the third consolidates all within a beat, and the fourth presents another way of notating which may not be acceptable in a given situation. Which do you prefer and why? Which is "correct" in your opinion?
128.jpg
128.jpg (192.44 KiB) Viewed 18329 times
Ron

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by Ron »

I prefer the 2nd with consolidated rests, for no other reason than I find it easier to keep track of the beat--whereas I have to stop and count all those pesky little 1/8th rests--and will sometimes get it wrong.

Reminds me of a work I wrote for a student orchestra in 12/8. They could not get it right and the entire performance was a shambles. I vowed then never to use 12/8 again. Instead I use 4/4 with triplets, or a smaller unit like 6/8.
RMK
Posts: 123
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 12:12

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by RMK »

Schirmer says that leading quarter rests are acceptable, but never following.

So, qr, e, qr, e is OK- e, qr, e, qr is not.
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by Fred G. Unn »

Ron wrote:I prefer the 2nd with consolidated rests, for no other reason than I find it easier to keep track of the beat--whereas I have to stop and count all those pesky little 1/8th rests--and will sometimes get it wrong.
The first bar is essentially unreadable IMO. If I had that placed on my stand I would have to go through and make some pencil markings to clarify where the beats actually were. I think some sort of consolidation is required here. I agree the second is a reasonable solution with fairly strict rules. I'm not sure those rules are immediately apparent to the performer though.
Last edited by Fred G. Unn on 05 Oct 2015, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by Fred G. Unn »

RMK wrote:Schirmer says that leading quarter rests are acceptable, but never following.

So, qr, e, qr, e is OK- e, qr, e, qr is not.
Yep, that is discussed on pg 74 as I mentioned. Upon a quick glance, it appears that Boosey disagrees. The Boosey style guide is from their London office, not NYC, but here's a scan from pg 40 of Boosey's guide:
BooseyRests.JPG
BooseyRests.JPG (68.13 KiB) Viewed 18296 times
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by Fred G. Unn »

Strictly following Boosey's "triple-time bars or beats should be split in thirds" results in the first measure in my original post, which is not very clear IMO. It's a 3/8 bar, but they do not consolidate leading rests in their example. I don't think this is as much of an issue in 3/8 as the barlines help the performer distinguish the beat. I'm curious if they would strictly adhere to their rule in 12/8, 15/8, etc.
N. Grossingink
Posts: 6
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 12:37

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by N. Grossingink »

I prefer measure 2 as well. However, I have trouble seeing the fourth beat. If I were performing this, I'd probably whip out the pencil and draw hashmarks above the beats. Depends a lot on tempo, frequency of the pattern and if the pattern stays the same or changes.

N.
Attachments
TwelveEight.png
TwelveEight.png (104.05 KiB) Viewed 18295 times
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by Fred G. Unn »

N. Grossingink wrote:If I were performing this, I'd probably whip out the pencil and draw hashmarks above the beats.
I would do the same. That sort of points out the problem here though. If the goal of notation is to make the music as clear as possible and the performer has to add information just to see the beat, then the engraver didn't really make it completely clear. If it's a casual rehearsal for a jazz quartet then it's not a big deal, but if you have an entire studio orchestra being paid union scale and they have to take 5 minutes to mark the beats in the parts, then that's a pretty expensive 5 minutes.

This issue has popped up periodically for me, but it just did again last week, so I was curious how others handle it.
erelievonen
Posts: 96
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 16:12
Contact:

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by erelievonen »

My practical views, not based on any textbook authority:

Measure 1 looks awful, I'd hate to have to read that. Too many eighth rests in a row, very difficult to see where the main beats fall. When sight-reading, chance of a reading error would be almost 100 %.

Measure 2 looks very good to me. In general, I would recommend this notation for most cases. "Consolidate leading rests (within the beat) but not trailing rests" – this is the rule that I am most used to and most comfortable with, also as a performer having to read it. It gives on-beat and off-beat notes a slightly different visual context, helping to recognize where the beats fall.

Measure 3 is definitely better than 1, but less good than 2. It is easy to misinterpret any quarter rest as being on the beat, because a) many musicians are used to the (old) practice of not using dotted quarter rests, in which case the quarter rest (of a 4th-8th rests pair) is always on the beat, and because b) some musicians (like me) are used to the above-mentioned rule of consolidating only leading rests.

Measure 4 is a simplified solution, which can make sense if the tempo is fast. (If the tempo is slow, the simplification is not necessary, because solution 2 is better.) Myself, I do indeed use this type of notation when I have to rewrite badly notated or otherwise extremely complex parts for myself to read (in which case I only strive for maximum ease of reading). I would in fact place staccato dots also on the 8th notes, to remind myself that they are all played equally short. However, I would hesitate to use this notation if it was intended for other people to read: there would always be someone who'd argue that eighths and quarters with staccato dots should be played differently. (If it was a composition of mine, I might use this notation, but only with the explicit remark that all staccato notes are played equally short.)

There is a fifth possible solution: to notate as in measure 1, but with beams (with short stemlets) extended over the rests. In this case the beats become clearly visible from the beams. To be really easy to read, this also requires good spacing: the rests should be given more or less the same horizontal space as the notes (so that you can immediately see on which subdivision the note sits on) – something that notation programs often fail to do. If the tempo is very fast, I find this solution superior to all the others, being the easiest to read quickly, even when sight-reading. (But otherwise, I don't really like beams over rests.)
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: 12/8 Question

Post by Fred G. Unn »

What about either of these?
12-8 spacing.jpg
12-8 spacing.jpg (142.11 KiB) Viewed 18289 times
More clear? Less clear? Just weird?

I nudged the first and last eighth notes towards the center eighth in any beats consisting of three eighths. Obviously this would be a PITA, but does it help, especially if it could be automated with a plug-in or something?
Post Reply