Writing Syncopated Rhythms

Hi,

I've looked around the internet but I can't seem to find an answer. When looking syncopated rhythms in music, I notice that sometimes the composer, instead of writing a crotchet may write 2 tied quavers whereas In other off beat places a crotchet has been used. Could someone help clarify when tied quavers should be substituted for crotchets? (Not specifically crotchets and tied quavers but maybe quavers and tied semi quavers etc etc)

Thanks

Fish

Mostly the reason for dividing a crotchet into two tied quavers is just readability, so you don't get lost in a long array of off-beat notes but still see the underlying pulse. If you have a semiquaver followed by eight quavers, followed by another semiquaver for example it might be helpful for the musician to either divide them in groups of semiquaver-3 quavers-semiquaver and tie them to the next group so you still see a half note pulse, or even use semiquaver-quaver-semiquaver groups tied together so you see the underlying crotchet pulse, which would be especially recommendable in a slow tempo.

Apart from this most common reason, there is another one that you will sometimes find in orchestral parts (Brahms for example): When a whole register (say, 4 Horns, for example) plays plays the same syncopic rhythm of two groups of quaver-crotchet-quaver, for example, where the chord changes between the two groups, the instruments that stay on the same note before and after the chord change may have a tied over note. In such a case it's still written as quaver-crotchet-quaver-tie-quaver-crotchet quaver, instead of quaver-3 crotchets-tie, to make the chord change in the other instruments apparent. Hmm, I don't think I explained this one well. I couldn't find an example right now.

These practices of course only make sense if there -is- an underlying pulse. In additive rhythms like the ones Messiaen uses, there would be little point in dividing notes into such groups. (Well, the concept of "syncopation" doesn't make much sense there anyways.)

If the syncopation has mutliple quantaties more than it should, it is usually written that way for cadence instinction. If not, then its mimicking parallel phrasing, like keeping to an indirect music law for orderly purposes, but its to set rhythmic standards before presenting the actual rhythmic variation(s). In natural theory, counting extracts time, and so mutliple quantaties are a sign for lengthier phrasing, even in rubato for quantative extremities.

Hi,

I've looked around the internet but I can't seem to find an answer. When looking syncopated rhythms in music, I notice that sometimes the composer, instead of writing a crotchet may write 2 tied quavers whereas In other off beat places a crotchet has been used. Could someone help clarify when tied quavers should be substituted for crotchets? (Not specifically crotchets and tied quavers but maybe quavers and tied semi quavers etc etc)

Thanks

Fish

Is there a specific purpose or reasoning behind your desire to write syncopated rhythms other than using ties? Or are you asking how a syncopated rhythm should be written and when should syncopation be written as such that obscures the beat?

Pardon me, but what the hell is a crochet?

Pardon me, but what the hell is a crochet?

A time note, with a stem, having one fourth the value of a semibreve, one half that of a minim, and twice that of a quaver; a quarter note.

:whistling:

If the USA don't use it, it don't exist... I guess ;)

Generally, the rule is that you should tie across any major time division.

So in the example I am attaching, the 1st measure is wrong (the dashed line represents the major time division within that bar) while the second is the "accepted standard" way of notating it.

There are tonnes of exceptions, of course, so this is a standard way of notating, but not an iron-clad rule. There ARE situations where the 1st measure of my example would be considered correct. It's on a case-by-case basis.

There is a Britten piece (Fish in the Unruffled Lakes - another fellow composer has to sing it and I'll play it) that I am learning now that's just like your first measure, but it makes it easier. So yeah, as long as it is easier to read, you can bend the rules.

I have never seen a score like the 'correct' example by Qcc, and I have seen a lot of scores.

I have never seen a score like the 'correct' example by Qcc, and I have seen a lot of scores.

Well, obviously not enough scores.

Please check any manual on engraving, where you will find that that is in fact the "correct" way to notate the syncopation in question.

Unless you are referring to the dotted line I put in to indicate the strong-beat separation of the measure? That is purely to help show where the the strong beat is and is not actually PART of the notation.

There is actually a lot of "incorrect" engraving being done, and this by "professional" engravers. Many editions where you will find exact reproductions of the beaming the composer wrote, without correcting for proper notation.

That said, "seeing something in print" does not make it correct notation. I know you will probably disagree, but then you are free to just ignore my advice and continue to do as you please.

As I did say, however, there are situational exceptions. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my initial post.

I am basing my information off the 5 engraving manuals I have here, including the Gardner Reed book. Unfortunately, most of my text books are already packed away for our move, so I can't give you specific book listings.

A syncopation must not camouflage a strong beat. In the example I posted, beat 3 is a "strong" beat in 4/4, thus requiring ties to allow for actual noteheads on the strong beat.

I have to second what QC Has stated... a lot of what shows up in print today has been incorrectly notated for years, and in many cases are just photocopies of older, incorrect additions.

This is compounded these days by the fact that any idiot can self-publish music now thanks to programs like Finale and Sibelius... without ever having learned anything about engraving or proper music notation.

As far as the "well, Stravinski/Bach/Beethoven/Glass/Wagner's left asscheek/Debussy wrote it this way" excuse... yes, maybe they did write it that way, it's still wrong! Music notation/engraving and music composition are different fields. Very, very related, of course... but still different fields. Just because you may have knowledge in one does not imply that you are equally knowledgeable in the either. Don't assume that your "heroes" are any different!

Stravinski's "Rite of Spring" is a work I consider genius. I enjoy reading the score immensely. I also, however, despise having to page through a score riddled with errors and horribly engraved. "But Stravinski wrote it, so of course it's correct!" you say. No, the correct answer is: Stravinski wrote it, and because he wrote it, no one's had the balls to go through it and FIX IT.

*sigh* But as QC indicated, you're free to ignore the rules (and probably will). So little people are being taught actual engraving skills that in a generation or so, no one will be educated enough to know good from bad. I guess it's a losing battle. Feel free to write crap. kthksla~ Meanwhile, I'll follow the rules, thanks. Oh, and look, my works look better than Joe Schmo's works done in Sibelius... well, golly!

peeve>