Engraving Question

So. I am working on a fugue. Parts are in free meter, parts are not. The following section is in 3/4 but there is a flowing line of 16ths in canon. I'd like to beam the 5 notes (tone row in reverse, countersubject) together, like this:

But the more clear approach is to separate them because of the meter:

I have an aesthetic preference for the first, but it might be too unclear... What should I do?

---

EDIT: I added a 3rd option:

you can put curtesy barlines and let the rhythm/tempo remain free (the barlines that are dotted). That might work.

Separate them (2nd way).

Doesn't matter what your tone row is, the notes should be played the same way, and a player would generally rather have clear beaming (obeying the general practice for a time sig) than compositional/constructional clarity.

In some cases, the latter can be more important, but I don't believe so here.

The golden rule of notation is: the clearer you can make it for the performer, the better.

I know, Daniel, that clarity of the score is important. That is why I asked in the first place. ;) I am inclined to go for the 2nd option now, but I think the 1st is still prettier

I do not really see how the suggestion to use courtesy barlines is helping. The pedal voice makes clear it is in 3/4. Isn't it strange to give a free meter, while it is obvious (and even more accentuated by the dotted barlines) in 3/4? Maybe entirely in free meter is the prettiest?

Thank you both...

Rhythmic clarity is far more important than pitch. #1 may be pretty, but #2 is easier to read.

Rhythmic clarity is far more important than pitch. #1 may be pretty, but #2 is easier to read.

The problem about using no 2 is that the performers will most likely stress those first beats. Do you want them to do that? Or not? If you choose the section make sure you tell them that you don't want those first beats stressed.

Paul has a point here. Since the piece is for organ, the stress of the beat will likely be played by a little delay of the 1st of the 16th notes, while a more flowing sequence is meant.

So how is this (3) compared to the other two?

I would do no. 2 or no. 3. The first example looks really messy. I don't see a problem with the latter two as long as you let your performers know how you want it done (as Morgri said.)

2. Hands down.

The others are ridiculous. No offense.

I think it's primarily because the pedal voice is in simple meter, and it is the voice who seems to be most rhythmically solid/foundational. To write the other voices in other, conflicting (not to mention convoluted) meters is extremely confusing.

2. Hands down.

The others are ridiculous. No offense.

I think it's primarily because the pedal voice is in simple meter, and it is the voice who seems to be most rhythmically solid/foundational. To write the other voices in other, conflicting (not to mention convoluted) meters is extremely confusing.

I disagree with the ridiculousness. But no offence taken. :)

it is a piece with lots of meter changes, starts 3/4 but gets 5/8 quickly. The free meter section is one measure 12/4 then one 7/4 and then again 12/4, really slow, only quarters (MM 50), like a chorale. So, a section in free meter, while the pedal seems to be in a regular 3/4, anything can happen. Nothing ridiculous, about it.

I think 1 looks messy because of the broken lower beam (of the 16ths, separating the quarters). That messiness was removed in the 3rd example. Due to the bar length and page width some accidentals may be colliding. I need to tend to that, but I do not consider example 3 (my favourite now) messy.

Any other views?

I disagree with the ridiculousness. But no offence taken. :)

it is a piece with lots of meter changes, starts 3/4 but gets 5/8 quickly. The free meter section is one measure 12/4 then one 7/4 and then again 12/4, really slow, only quarters (MM 50), like a chorale. So, a section in free meter, while the pedal seems to be in a regular 3/4, anything can happen. Nothing ridiculous, about it.

:lol:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I say "meter" I am referring to the divisions of each beat, not how many beats per measure. The way the bass voice is beamed, it should be in simple meter, not 3 or 5 or 7 sixteenths. That is what is confusing about the others. You have to constantly keep track of how many sixteenths you have played in each individual voice rather than just see where each sixteenth lines up with the low voice when beamed accordingly. And the fact that you have to keep track of more than one makes 1 and 3, to me, almost unreadable.

I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the readability. In all likeliness, the performer will play the same music regardless. It's just a matter of making the music as easy to decode as possible. In this case, I'd say pretty strongly that to that end you should beam consistently across the score. If this were for an ensemble, it might be different, but for one person to have to translate three completely different lines like that isn't practical.

hm... ok. Yeah. I mix up meter and time signature ;)

on the other hand, it isn't that hard, two sets of 16ths together equals 12/16, having the same duration as 3/4, the second voice enters 2/16th after the first, and the third voice enters 2/16th after the second. Because of the total duration of the down-runs of 12/16th (similar to the pedal) each entry is in the 'same place' So I don't think option 3 is really that difficult to play or to read.

What do you think of Morgi's argument that some 16ths tend to be accented? (which is not my intend...)

It's an organ. Accents won't make much of a difference. :)

Justin, as a special service for you I am going to repeat post number 7:

... Since the piece is for organ, the stress of the beat will likely be played by a little delay of the 1st of the 16th notes, while a more flowing sequence is meant.

:)

!!!!!!!

How did I miss that? :facepalm:

JC,

*sigh* You know, you're right. I mean, you want it to be easy to read, but you also want your interpretation to shine through the notation as well. If you beam it in simple meter, the downbeats will invariably be accented. On the other hand, an accomplished musician would be able to see what you're doing (5-note motif placed in stretto) and resist the urge to play it as if it were ini X/4. I know I would. I've played pieces like that, and usually it's pretty obvious to see when a composer opted for a simple time signature that is NOT supposed to be applied to the interpretation of the music.

On the other hand, I think a good compromise would be the suggestion to put in dotted measure lines every two beats or so. That way you can have your cake (keeping track of where everything lines up) and eat it too (make the motivic development and interpretation completely obvious). In which case #3 would be the best option. Particularly if you want the first note of the motif to be treated differently than the others (tenuto mark?)

What do you think?

I think number three is somewhat risky. You are going unmetered and that can be hard for performers to stay together. Of course, if this is just one person,m that might work rather well.

I think number three is somewhat risky. You are going unmetered and that can be hard for performers to stay together. Of course, if this is just one person,m that might work rather well.

Morgi, this is an interesting turn of events. The unmetered version was inspired by your suggestion :)

It is for organ, so I guess that the performer can keep feet and hands together.

You suggested, and Peter does that now, to add dotted barlines. I think I'll choose for option 3, with dotted barlines.

Peter suggests per 2 beats, but since the pedal is in 3/4 and the manuals sort of follow that meter, per 3 would be more fitting.

(BTW, the theme, now in the pedal is somewhere else in canon in a 2/4 signature, so what you proposed it is not that odd)

Peter, I think you are right in that I have to more trust in the analytical capacity of the performer. When they see a stretto (in this case it's more a canon of the counter subject, anyway...) there is less need to make that visually clear.

One last thing to make sure. I do NOT want that the entrance of a 5 note motive is played tenuto. I want all notes to be played similar so that a flowing unaccented wave of 16ths is the result.

Both thanks again!

in no.2, I would prob beam all the beats

For those interested in the piece sofar, it can be found at http://www.box.net/shared/odm9di9qay

The section where the engraving question is about can be found at page 3. All comments welcome!