# Would this rhythm throw you if you were sightreading?



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2014)

Like most people, I violate the imaginary bar line all the time. 8th 1/4 1/4 1/4 8th, for example; it would be much harder to read tied 8ths.

But I'm curious whether other people would also stumble over the following, which I'm looking at in a transcription of a Joe Sample solo:

8th 8th 8th 8th 16th 16th 1/4 16th 16th.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 13, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with that.

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2014)

Interesting. I'd always write

16th 16th 8th tied to 8th 16th 16th.

Of course that's how you're taught to write it too.

But it's context. If I were reading contemporary concert music, I'd know to expect rhythms I don't recognize by sight. This is standard pop.


----------



## Luke W (Oct 13, 2014)

That would be my preferred way to write that rhythm - even for a published score.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2014)

The first way, Luke?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Interesting. I'd always write
> 
> 16th 16th 8th tied to 8th 16th 16th.
> 
> Of course that's how you're taught to write it too.


That's been out of date for at least 30 years. :wink: 

The other one is not putting a dotted half note in 6/8. I was always taught to write two dotted quarters, but that is also old news.

D


----------



## JohnG (Oct 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ 13th October 2014 said:


> Interesting. I'd always write
> 
> 16th 16th 8th tied to 8th 16th 16th.



I'd rather read this one. 

I sight read a lot, but it's mostly vocal music, a good bit of which was probably transcribed at LEAST 30 years ago.


----------



## bbunker (Oct 13, 2014)

Ugh. I despise untied, across the beat 'simplifications' of tied notes. I particularly despise them in jazz, since it especially defeats the relationships between first and second eighths.

I seriously doubt that it's become standardized to write the 'new' way either, since both Sher and Aebersold use the 'old' way steadfastly. I rank them pretty highly in defining modern jazz notation, so...yeah, I think it's safe to say that they define the standard, and it continues to be 'old' notation of tied notes.

Personally, I could read either one, really. It's easier to sight-read the old way. But only one way will come with a severe eye-rolling and a sigh of smug disapproval.

Is this a published transcription, btw?


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2014)

JohnG @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ 13th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. I'd always write
> ...


+1 if it's a quick tempo. If it's an adagio then it's not as big a deal.

The problem, of course, with combining the two 8ths into a quarter is that the quarter note obfuscate the beat and can make it hard to follow the conductor. If you tie the two 8th notes, you will play it the same way but it's easier to keep track of the beat.

With longer note lengths that doesn't matter so much. But for quicker rhythms where it's injected within some 16ths, it's easier to read with the 8ths separated but tied.

Take it to a faster limit: imagine you wanted quarter notes delayed by 1/16th at the start of the measure. Much better to break the notes across the beats and tie them as appropriate. Otherwise, after the second or third note (or more, depending on bar length) you'll be pretty confused about where you are relative to the beat.

Is that really not standard any more? Maybe in jazz but in the classical world I can't think of many instances in the last 20 years where I haven't seen it written with the eights separated but tied.

rgames


----------



## gregjazz (Oct 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> Interesting. I'd always write
> 
> 16th 16th 8th tied to 8th 16th 16th.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I would absolutely expect it to be notated this way.

Unless you're trying to emphasize an irregular pulse through notation or some other strange circumstance, the first way (sixteenth sixteenth quarter...) would be considered a mistake.


----------



## Lawson. (Oct 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> Interesting. I'd always write
> 
> 16th 16th 8th tied to 8th 16th 16th.
> 
> ...



That's how I would write it. I can read both, but this is so much more "user-friendly." :D


----------



## trumpoz (Oct 13, 2014)

bbunker @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Personally, I could read either one, really. It's easier to sight-read the old way. But only one way will come with a severe eye-rolling and a sigh of smug disapproval.



I'm with you on this one bbunker. If I was handed this rhythm I'd just shake my head. If I handed it to someone else to read on a gig I'd have about 10 seconds to kick my own ass before others did it for me.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2014)

I used to read big band drum and vibes parts back in the day - yes, a little over 30 years ago  - and that kind of reading is recognition, not counting. So if it doesn't look right, you stumble.

That was the same era when I read percussion ensemble parts - in college - and when you're in that mode you're reading polyrhythms and all kinds of unpredictable stuff. Same with orchestral percussion parts. But your brain is expecting to count.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2014)

And I read a lot of musical (theatrical) percussion parts too. I don't think you'd see that.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 14, 2014)

Hmm. I think you guys need to get out more. And read theory books. :lol: 

However, I pose one question; what's the difference (in 4/4) between 1/16 1/16 1/14 1/16 1/16 and 1/8 1/4 1/8?

The only rule that we teach these days is not to write across the half bar, except with a dotted half note on the first or second beats of the bar. However, the bar that begins with and 1/8 followed by quarters and ends with an 1/8 is sometimes used (Nick's other example), although technically incorrect.

D


----------



## Rob (Oct 14, 2014)

Daryl @ 14th October 2014 said:


> Hmm. I think you guys need to get out more. And read theory books. :lol:
> 
> However, I pose one question; what's the difference (in 4/4) between 1/16 1/16 1/14 1/16 1/16 and 1/8 1/4 1/8?
> 
> ...



that the first one contains the unusual value of 1/14... :D

anyway, I would write it the same way Nick does.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 14, 2014)

Rob @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Daryl @ 14th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. I think you guys need to get out more. And read theory books. :lol:
> ...


HAHA. Yes, that would be fun.

FWIW I would also write it the way that Nick does, but then again I don't use 1/4 rests in 3/8, so I'm also an old fart.

D


----------



## murrthecat (Oct 14, 2014)

One vote for the second way, it can be safer for a wider range of performers. 

Nevertheless, I would stumble on it since I am more used to read the first option.  

Ale


----------



## stonzthro (Oct 14, 2014)

Yep 2nd way - when the 3rd beat is visible, it is usually much easier to read - which is what Daryl said also


----------



## Lawson. (Oct 14, 2014)

Daryl @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Hmm. I think you guys need to get out more. And read theory books. :lol:
> 
> However, I pose one question; what's the difference (in 4/4) between 1/16 1/16 1/14 1/16 1/16 and 1/8 1/4 1/8?
> 
> ...



I was taught that the down beat and 3rd beat should be obviously visible. Beats 2 and 4 may be shown as well, but that can be over-the-top.

However, my professor said that syncopation such as ⅛ ¼ ¼ ¼ ⅛ is so common you can just write it as is.


----------



## Luke W (Oct 14, 2014)

Nick-

Yes, I meant I would write it the first way you suggested with the quarter note rather than the tied 8ths. And I'm a guy who NEVER violates the imaginary barline. But I will say, I'm more likely to simplify like you've suggested in your example when it's vocal music. For instrumental parts, I may tie the 8ths, depending on how it looks to my eye, if the surrounding rhythms are particularly gnarly, etc.

Another consideration: if a similar rhythm repeats, I'll stay consistent. Ex: if previous measure is 1/4 1/4 1/16 1/16 1/8 tied to dotted 1/8 1/16, then I would tie 8ths over beat 3 in the following measure, even if there's no dotted 8th that forces me to.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 14, 2014)

I don't think I'd stumble, only because the two 16ths pickup is a throwaway.
Ordinarily though, I tie every damned thing.


----------



## JT (Oct 16, 2014)

For sightreading, the 2nd example with the tied 8ths, no question.

But, if it was 1/8 1/4 1/8 on beats 3 & 4, then the quarter is fine. These two example you would think follow the same "rule", but they don't.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2014)

Daryl, there isn't really any logical difference. You're right. But it still looks weird to me.


----------



## andy_i (Feb 6, 2015)

This is usually the easiest way to call it. A is 100% the way I would score it. I also find A easier to read, as the down beats are still clearly indicated, even though tied.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 6, 2015)

That's what we were discussing, Andy.

And now that we've gone over it, I recognize it and wouldn't be surprised anymore. The shock has worn off.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 6, 2015)

I think this one is weird too:


----------



## Daryl (Feb 6, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 06 said:


> I think this one is weird too:


Yes, that's plain wrong....!

D


----------



## madbulk (Feb 6, 2015)

It is.


----------



## andy_i (Feb 6, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 07 said:


> I think this one is weird too:


That's just horrid. The original quoted example is something you might find in jazz real books from time to time - they seem less fussy, but this thing...


----------



## pkm (Feb 7, 2015)

I'd like to second (tenth?) the tied 8th notes rather than the quarter note. I'd take clarity over simplicity any day of the week.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2015)

The thing is, don't you picture that rhythm as tied 8ths in your minds?

On the other hand, writing this would be correct, yet it would automatically make you an AH:


----------



## snattack (Feb 8, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 07 said:


> The thing is, don't you picture that rhythm as tied 8ths in your minds?
> 
> On the other hand, writing this would be correct, yet it would automatically make you an AH:



Rhythms that have a long tradition, logical repeating pattern and/or have a clear landing spot on a beat in the beginning or end can violate the rule of the invisible middle. But as soon as rhythms get more complex with shifting logical patterns, the middle rule should always apply.

It's always about what's easier to read. I'd say that the following examples are motivated:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ac8klylamf6au ... e.pdf?dl=0

It's convenient to show the last beat/beats in example B and C by beaming.


----------



## almound (Jun 22, 2015)

Maybe a player should rather seek to play music as notated, rather than insist upon one notation over the other. That said, there is something to be said about simplicity. But instances where no single representation satisfies everyone abound. Flexibility of reading skills is presumed by so many, and there are always new "rules" by which to notate. 

The question becomes rather important as one takes the long-term view of music. After all, writing a piece in straight time with the global instruction to "Texas swing" it may be convenient, but in a few decades or centuries what are musicians going to interpret "Texas swing" to be? Or "techno-pop," for that matter. Perhaps it is as Frank Zappa would answer. We need to notate as accurately as possible, because what happens in the future when nobody knows to which our colloquial expressions refer? 

Anyone up to interpreting the expression "ma non tanto?"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2015)

It's what the Latin Lone Ranger said when he wanted his mother and not Tonto.


----------



## Gary Eskow (Jul 7, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Like most people, I violate the imaginary bar line all the time. 8th 1/4 1/4 1/4 8th, for example; it would be much harder to read tied 8ths.
> 
> But I'm curious whether other people would also stumble over the following, which I'm looking at in a transcription of a Joe Sample solo:
> 
> 8th 8th 8th 8th 16th 16th 1/4 16th 16th.


----------



## Gary Eskow (Jul 7, 2015)

That would throw me a bit, Nick.


----------

