NOTATIO

I keep getting tripped up by this rule, about amalgamating or not before and after beats in compound time.

So I have a bar of 6/4

| | (imagine that this last one is actually a dotted half note rest, and not a dotted note)

Can I, or must I not, amalgamate those two quarter note rests on beats 2 and 3 (this is counted/conducted as six beats, and not as a 2-beat bar of dotted halves.)

I can see where, for example in 6/8 one would count as two beats per bar and it would be more important to show the subdivisions of the beats with individual rests for "and a".
But here it's actually one, two, three, four, five, six. there's no feeling of that barcarolle "swing" to the rhythm.

No, you would only combine two quarter rests on 1, 3, or 5 in this case.

except amalgamating rests on 3-4 and 5-6 turns the notation into 3/2, which is "wrong" in this particular context.

Leave it as it is.

6/4 is interpreted as 3+3, no matter how it is conducted.

No half rests in 3/4. Same in 6/4 or 9/4 etc.; only dotted half rests. Exception: if you move to 3/2 within a 6/4 section and don't change the meter, then half rests on the three strong beats only. As a rare exception one may use a half rest instead of two quarter rests in 3/4 etc.to show a single fermata over those two quarter beats.

help me understand the origin behind this rule?

I accept it, I'm just curious about "why".

I understand in 4/4 not obscuring the half-measure.

But I can't see the reasoning in 3/4.

I like to understand the reasoning behind a rule. It helps me assimilate it better.

I'd be interested in the origin of this convention as well. Anyone know for sure? It certainly goes way back.

A conjecture: our present system of rhythmic values is based on duple divisions. Whole notes and rests, divided into halves, quarters etc. and makes the 4/4 measure the starting point. Triple time is a makeshift affair made out of bits and pieces of duple time note and rest values, some of which have been accepted, like the half note, and some not, like the half rest.

Sorry, MichelRE. That's the best I can come up with .

And I am not sure about half rest plus quarter rest to show a half measure of 6/4 etc. Perhaps that is sometimes done. But I much prefer dotted rests in 6/4, 6/8 etc.

John Ruggero wrote: ↑21 Sep 2024, 15:15 No half rests in 3/4. Same in 6/4 or 9/4 etc.; only dotted half rests.

The no half rests in 3/4 is certainly a hard-and-fast rule except for the fermata exception you mentioned, but not so for multiples of 3/4 as a long string of quarter rests can be disorienting and obscure the meter. It's ok to consolidate leading quarters but not trailing quarters in multiples of 3/4. It's sort of odd looking, but I'm pretty sure the first bar below would be considered "correct," and not the second.
At first glance, the meter of the second bar is unclear, as the eye has to parse all the quarters, where the half rest in the first bar makes it instantly clear that we're in 6/4.

You're right, Fred G. Inn. Sorry, MicheleRE. I overstated the case. I think that in common practice it follows the same rules as quarter rests in 6/8 vs. 3/8 etc. But half-rest quarter-note, half-rest quarter-note in 6/4 looks wrong to me. I guess I prefer

I believe that it was Arnstein who never used quarter rests in 6/8 or half rests in 6/4. We used to bracket the groups of three beats in situations like that shown in Fred. G. Unn's example. He wanted every beat seen 6/8 and 6/4. The only exception was a complete half measure which was shown always as in 6/8 or dotted half rest in 6/4. But those are easy to take in being complete units of three.

And that actually might be the answer to MicheleRE's query about the origin of the no half rest-3/4 rule. In duple time one has only two's to keep track of. But in triple time, the one extra beat needs a little more visual aid to keep track of. For that reason, every beat should be seen.

Beethoven was another one. He just wrote the strings of four rests in a row without concern and no brackets. Then the first and later editors would amalgamate the last two rests in 6/8 Don't know how he felt about that, but he just kept writing it the other way in piece after piece.

Fred G. Unn wrote: ↑23 Sep 2024, 11:57
At first glance, the meter of the second bar is unclear, as the eye has to parse all the quarters, where the half rest in the first bar makes it instantly clear that we're in 6/4.

It is unclear only because there is no context. I think that as part of a phrase, the meaning would be clear enough.

To me, the first example looks weird.