Hey everyone, a quick notation query if anyone has any suggestions... one of my pieces has a simple repeated triplet pattern here and there. I beam in 6s but my software groups as 2x triplets, which is technically correct but groups the notes a little unidiomatically.
I can't, for whatever reason, simply notate them as 6s. So I'm asking if the current notation is clear enough for the players here? If it comes to it I can hide the triplets and create the 6s manually, but it's extra work. If the current notation works, everyone wins.
Tempo is 70, 4/4, and the instruments are flutes and oboes. Thanks!
Replies
I'll weigh in and suggest groupings in 3's, i.e. triplets and not sextuplets. In fact, as you have it Dave, only beamed in 3's not 6's. The repeated notes will benefit the player psychologically and visually when in 3's, giving them a beat to aim for (but not accent), by defining the time signature more clearly. I don't see the point in using sextuplets here, not that they would be wrong as such, it's just that I feel clarity is better seved in 3's in your example and at the tempo indicated.
I was worried that the natural implied rhythm and repetition clashes with triplets, you see (in my head it feels more like 4 then 2 than 3 then 3) and sextups encapsulated the entire phrase. But that might just be my blind spot as a non-reader. I think I've composed similar patterns before in triplets as you suggest, not worried, and it was played fine.
Also your way is a lot easier!
EDIT: of course as soon as I try it, the pattern looks clear and simple. It was beaming as 6 with 2x triplets that was bending my brain :/
If you want a different stress to the 4 beats of the time signature you can artificially group notes in 4's and 2's using accents. Other than that, groups of 3's is the obvious way to go. John's suggestion to drop the numerals and even the brackets holds too. Beaming in 3's makes it obvious that the groupings are triplets once the fact has been initially established by an indication.
Well, we have our answer. Thanks Mike, John and all!
surely it all depends on how it's to be phrased. If the phrasing is in groups of three then triplets is right and if, as I assumed from the original query, the idea is groups of six, then it should be notated as such if possible. I don't see either being wrong as such, though as it's staccato, that might more indicate groups of three as Mike was suggesting.
I'll just add in Gould's advice: in determining triplets from sextuplets, consider sextuplets as primarily a duple rhythm. Given this is 4/4 and slow tempo, I'd say stick with the triplets, though I would beam on the quarter note and lose the brackets (you only need brackets when there isn't full beaming of the beat). If this pattern is repeated for a while, you could drop the numerals after a bar or two to make it cleaner.
Hmm you're right, it's 4/4, so in this case triplets would actually be more appropriate. I got distracted by the beaming and didn't look carefully at the time sig. In this case the beaming is misleading (unless the intention is really to treat it as the equivalent of 2/2). If the rhythm is genuinely 4/4 then triplets are the way to go, and the beaming needs to be fixed.
I agree on a few points here:
Firstly, if it is in 4/4 time and you're not attempting to convey any unconventional stresses on different beats, I would recommend the "correct" approach of using four separate triplets. Players prefer to see distinct beats. They will naturally phrase differently if the notes are grouped into sets of six, as they will assume there is a specific reason for you doing so- or assume some rhythmic or phrasing communication they think you intend. For standard 4/4 time, using four separately beamed triplets is the preferred method.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next