NOTATIO

David Ward said:

That might work for pianists, but what about some notation that would be clear in single line orchestral parts as “a new kind of note …” as you suggested above?

I was thinking that it might be a one-player mallet part for Vibes and Marimba, so the Marimba part would orient the player. But even if it were a single line part, does a player really need something special to hold through four measures of 5/16? If so, then cues would be needed, no matter what the notation.

But it is fun to contemplate an "whole-measure note." Such a note would only be necessary for meters in which it is not now possible to fill with a single note value, i.e. 5/x, 7/x, 9/x, 10/x, 11/x, 13/x, etc. In such cases, maybe some kind of a square whole note?

I think the double dot (one before and one after the note) indicates a half dot, ie. where a single dot would add half the value, this half dot adds a quarter of the value. Therefore 1 quarter note with this sign becomes a full 5/16 bar.

I recently worked on a couple of pieces by the Norwegian composer Asbjørn Schaathun who achieves a similar notation by adding a x after the note instead of the dot. This is equally time consuming in Finale requiring me to hide many 16 rests, add the + as an articulation, and if the note is tied, to manually adjust the tie which ends, by default, at the hidden 16th rest.

John Ruggero wrote:A good case could be made for a new kind of note that fills out an entire measure of any meter, corresponding to a "whole measure rest".

Especially at fast tempos and/or small numerators, I always like having the actual duration spelled out for each note, even though it fills an entire measure. It makes the rhythm clear without having to refer to the time signature. Then again, I don't play as complex music as showcased in this thread, so maybe it would be appropriate for music with non-traditional or frequently changing time signatures. It may also simply be a matter of getting used to the notation, but it's difficult to imagine changes at such a basic level of notation being widely adopted.

Knut said:

Especially at fast tempos and/or small numerators, I always like having the actual duration spelled out for each note, even though it fills an entire measure. It makes the rhythm clear without having to refer to the time signature.

This point also occurred to me as I was contemplating the implications of a "whole-measure note". Players can use the help for additive meters like 11/x. So there may be very good reasons that we don't have a "whole-measure note." What do you think, David?

John Ruggero wrote: … … … What do you think, David?

I think that there are probably musical situations and types of ensemble in which a standardized 'whole bar note' might work very efficiently, irrespective of the varying time signatures; but for the most part, and after further thought, I agree that it's likely to be safest to notate the exact value for each iteration.

Thanks for your thoughts on that, David. Designing such a note is not easy. A standard breve comes to mind, but they have always seemed a little hard to read to me, especially when stacked up in chords. There are so many good reasons for the way our notational system has evolved that a really sound innovation is not easy to come by.

John Ruggero wrote:I've never seen the bracket-like beaming at the end of the second example before. This is a very creative and interesting way to show a syncopation. Is this common now?

This is not a syncopation. The passage is a standard compound metre, with it's groups emphasized by compulsory beaming (even where flags would suffice by standard rules, if not to say: where, by standard rules, flags would be correct).

RMK wrote:Keep in mind that Crumb worked as a copyist for quite a while. His autography is beautiful - suitable for framing.

The music isn't bad, either...

woww really ? a copyist too .. i always wonder who did the engraving on his macrocosmos ...

Alexander Ploetz wrote:

This is not a syncopation. The passage is a standard compound metre, with it's groups emphasized by compulsory beaming

Thank you, Alexander. I think that you are saying that this is a kind of "beaming over notes" (as in "beaming over rests"), to show the groupings by 3's. But I don't understand why the simple rhythm of 1/8 1/4 | 1/4 1/8 deserves special treatment, even in 15/8, because the groups are obvious to any musician. If it is to show that the measure is not 9/8 + 3/4, why? The final rhythm is going to sound syncopated no matter what the composer writes.

If this is Crumb's normal practice for such rhythms and not an exceptional case, I am personally not in sympathy with reinventing the wheel notationally, because it usually creates more questions than answers. As you said, we already have a perfectly good notation for this: flagged notes.

Peter West wrote:I think the double dot (one before and one after the note) indicates a half dot, ie. where a single dot would add half the value, this half dot adds a quarter of the value. Therefore 1 quarter note with this sign becomes a full 5/16 bar.

I recently worked on a couple of pieces by the Norwegian composer Asbjørn Schaathun who achieves a similar notation by adding a x after the note instead of the dot. This is equally time consuming in Finale requiring me to hide many 16 rests, add the + as an articulation, and if the note is tied, to manually adjust the tie which ends, by default, at the hidden 16th rest.

Finnish composer Kalevi Aho also uses this way of notation. In Finale, you can use the tuplet tool with this tie problem. Time consuming also, yes, but no need to adjust the tie manually.