Tuplets and Such

I have a few measures in something that I'm working on that have these tuplets where I have determined (though of course it can be notated that way, technically) that if would be easier to just pull them together with a bar into sixes for ease of reading. This is how they WERE:

HHMaung - Suite in G Major - V. Gigue.MID

I decided I'd rather group them with a bar because it would be easy for one's eyes to get blurry after a measure or two of that (plus, it's a heck of a lot easier when you are first writing it by hand, hahaha!). So when I did that on the computer, it came out like this:

HHMaung - Suite in G Major.pdf

But then I was like, is that even right? I can't remember a specific instance where I have seen this kind of thing before with a repeated note in this rhythmic fashion, so I don't have anything to reference. Am I supposed to leave it like this or are all the notes supposed to be grouped together in one long bar at the top/bottom with brackets indicating the beginning and ending of the sixes?

hope that made sense. It seems simple, but I'm not certain so I wanted some input from someone who is.

I've seen the second type before. I think it's acceptable, and if your program did it, then it probably is.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much, as anyone will know what is meant.

I like example #1. I can't find anything in my style books, but my sense is that both are not incorrect. My personal preference is to not have them grouped in sixes, for the following reasons:

It takes more ink - This has nothing to do with conservation or saving the ink plants, rather - it is more extraneous black on the page and is simply harder on the eye.

The tuplet bracket that groups each beat does the neccesary job of informing the reader where each beat is. There is no need for redundancy with the beaming.

BEAMS!

I was having a brain fart and couldn't remember the word "beam" when I was typing the topic for some reason. I was like, "bar...thingie?" Then again, I just laid on the ground to listen to something and fell asleep for the last hour and a half...heh.

Thank you for both of your input.

I only reason I thought about the second one is that after a measure or two of the repeated notes it can be dizzying to the player to read. However, all it takes is a little practice of the part and that won't be a problem, so I suppose it doesn't matter either way (although for the purpose of handwriting, it certainly is easier temporarily than carefully trying to align all those little sixteenths in the measures).

I have been studying notation before, and I know that the best way to write this is the second example. I have experience with a lot of performers and I can say that this way helped them a lot while reading much difficult passages than on this example.

I'm afraid I go along with leightwing; though in my case because as a performer I get fed up with wading through impressive-looking but over-elaborate notation. You only need a few bars of that with an unusual or unchanging underlying harmony to lose track.

Given a part like that, I'd get the tippex out and make each sextuplet into: two beamed notes followed by a rest, then two more beamed notes and another rest, i.e. no beam between the second and third notes of each group.

Easier to read, particularly at sight. Ok when you're a student and have time to practice (or a professional who doesn't need to practice) but in real life you often don't - or the composer has to make do with less than perfect performers (like me) so anything that eases performance at all, I go for.

Your second example is just an elaboration - it tells the performer nothing that the simpler notation doesn't.

I have pulpit moments over composers making things more complicated than they really are. It wastes rehearsal time and can cause embarrassment...when the conductor or lead player asks the composer to sort something out, like demonstrate it on a piano. I've seen it!

:mellow:

M

Really!

Gee, and I thought I was simplifying it by adding the beams! :P

Maybe I'll compromise and handwrite it WITH the beams (for ease of writing) and then eliminate it when I notate it - since it's easier to just not put the beams in.

!

This topic once again proves that whenever I think a question is simple, it never is :mellow: