Re: 5027: NR example with bad engraving practice

[Thomas Morley]

2017-01-06 0:04 GMT+01:00 Hans Aikema <address@hidden>:
>
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 23:55, Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> On 05.01.2017 23:42, Hans Aikema wrote:
>>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 23:16, Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04.01.2017 15:01, Hans Åberg wrote:
>>>>>>> This is just a quirk of the 4/4 [meter], also mentioned in Hindemith, 
>>>>>>> "Elementary Training", p. 30. In other words, the note should not cross 
>>>>>>> the 2nd and 4th metric accents, but it can cross the [3rd].
>>>> I’ve never heard of that and would assume it is a peculiarity in 
>>>> Hindemith. Can anyone cite Gould or similar on the topic?
>>>>
>>>> Best, Simon
>>> Have Gould at hand, but I think it depends on interpretation of Gould p171 
>>> in the section on Syncopation
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> The following common patterns are exceptions and should always be written 
>>> as follows
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> description of the image that follows for 4/4 time:
>>> crotchet minim crotchet  and not crotchet crotchet tie crotchet crotchet
>>>
>>> does that hold for ‘minim in the middle of the measure’ or just for an 
>>> exact crotchet minim crotchet measure?
>>
>> We are not talking about a simple syncopated rhythm like the one Gould lists 
>> as an exception (!). Of course it’s perfectly normal to write 4 2 4 in 4/4 
>> time.
>> But if the note has to be split with a tie anyway, then it should be split 
>> along the center of the measure first, unlike the NR hitherto did.
>> 8 4.~ 4 4
>> not
>> 8 8~ 2 4
>>
>> Best, Simon
>
> How I read p171 is that those are common patterns that are NOT syncopated but 
> appear to be, as it follows the following snippet of text on Syncopation:
>
> Rhythms that should not be syncopated must divide note-values to expose the 
> beats of the bar:
>
> 4/4 time 4. 4 8 4 | will be accentuated as 3 + 3+ 2 quavers : 8/8 4.-> 4-> 8 
> 4-> |
>
> unless written 4/4 4. 8~8 8 4 |
>
> The following common patterns……..



Hi all,

reading the discussion I think a lot of valid arguments for this and
that are stated. Afaict noone doubts the "not"-example is (usually)
bad practise.

So, why not show two possibilities?

\relative {
  r8 c'~ 2 r4 |
  r8^"or even" c4.~ c4 r4 |
  r8^"not" c2~ 8 r4
}

Cheers,
  Harm