NOTATIO

I'm working on a manuscript (mid-20th C), and there's a few bits I'd be grateful for some guidance with.

First: It's in 9/8, and the composer uses dotted semibreves to represent a whole bar. (Clearly shown in bar 4 and elsewhere.)
I'm concerned about the duration of the notes in bar 1 and 3.
I'm thinking that they should fill the bar? The alternative would be a rest on the 3rd beat.

And should I use dotted semibreves, or the 'proper' duration?

Second, I have this indication for duplets.
Each "2" would suggest 2 eighths in the time of 3, but the square brackets are over each sixteenth. To me, doing eighths makes more sense, but should I bother with the subdivision?
Many thanks

I'm almost certain the dotted semibreves are meant to be a whole bar's worth and should be replace by the correct values with ties. One would need to see/hear more than you have shown to decide on bar 3.

There are often queries about duplets in compound meters. I've taken to writing dotted notes instead, but it's not unusual to find a quaver duplet replacing the three quavers of a compound beat. On the principle of reproducing the composer's notation as closely as possible you may feel it best to keep the subdivision, although it's probably not only unnecessary but may have people asking what it is supposed to indicate that would not be clear without the subdivision.

Thanks, David.

There's not much more of bar 3. The voice, above, has dotted minim, dotted crotchet. I'm wondering whether that first chord should hold while the left hand plays.

The upper chord in m. 3 should probably hold through the entire measure. The stem may be an error and should probably be removed.

In any case, if this example is typical, the notation is so "idioscyncratic" that I wouldn't hesitate to standardize everything in the interests of intelligibility

Thanks, John. It's good to know where the balance lies here!

benwiggy wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 12:17 Second, I have this indication for duplets.

Each "2" would suggest 2 eighths in the time of 3, but the square brackets are over each sixteenth. To me, doing eighths makes more sense, but should I bother with the subdivision?

Many thanks

Since it is a separate staff-instrument I would suggest to indicate 4 (:6) rather than 2. For me it is slightly confusing to see that way.
Or to indicate 2 - but anyhow it is definitely sounding four notes instead of six notes.

Actually, the more I get into this, the more confusing it gets. We've had several bars of 8 semiquavers in one compound beat. Then we have 4 quavers in the space of 3 quavers - which is actually the same note duration as the 4 semiquavers in a duplet

However, because it's a commission from the estate of a deceased composer, I don't want to do too much alteration.