Theoretically Correct vs Practical Notation

Question

My music theory studies ended 20 years ago, but I am busy with some notation by combining piano accompaniment with vocals for solo piano, for personal use.

So, in 4/4 time, music theory dictates that beamed notes are used when the beat is not on the 1,2,3 or 4 beat. Similarly, in compound time signatures like 9/8 time dotted quarter notes are common.

Correct me where I am making mistakes.

However, the notation I am busy with has dotted quarter note beats in 4/4 time. Practically you feel the 3, 3, 2 eight note beats better, so it can make sense to have two dotted quarter notes and one normal quarter beat, as this is what you feel when playing the music. But according to classical music theory this is not entirely correct. Which way in modern or nowadays notation is accepted as the better way to notated this?

The above picture is theoretically correct.

But is this one more intuitive?

The fact that the first example is much better has nothing to do with theoretical correctness but everything to do with making it easier to read. — PiedPiper, Mar 01 '23 at 14:00
The second example would be more *internally-consistent* if the two quarter notes in the right hand were notated as a dotted quarter tied to an eighth, and the last two eighths in the second measure were beamed together, but not to the preceding one. — Theodore, Mar 01 '23 at 15:52
Whenever I read a question to that sets up the idea that music theory isn't practical, I expect it will reveal a misunderstanding of theory. I would say music theory dictates note grouping that reflect the beat structure of the meter, including additive meters. — Michael Curtis, Mar 01 '23 at 16:54

score 13 · Answer 1 · answered Mar 01 '23 at 13:47

The top version is more correct 100% of the time when written in 4/4.

In the bottom version, I see a few issues that could present themselves:

In the first measure, two consecutive quarter notes that could be misread as both being on the beat.
Three grouped eighth notes at the beginning and end of the second measure that could be viewed as triplets.
In the second measure, the dots on the quarters could get lost in a quick glance.

Although the top version is absolutely better, I will say that I'm seeing the left-hand rhythm in the second measure more often than I did several years ago. I think this is unwise, but I'm still seeing it more and more frequently.

But, there is another option: writing this in a 3+3+2/8 time signature. When you write it that way, you prime your performer to expect two groups of three eighth notes followed by a group of two eighth notes, thereby limiting the possible confusions outlined above. Just be careful to use ties so that each beginning of that 3+3+2 structure is shown. The quarter-note A in the first measure of the bottom version, for example, would need to be two tied eighths in a 3+3+2 meter.

As the question mentions "modern" and "nowadays accepted" it might help to confirm that yes, in literature from the past 50 years, when there’s a 3+3+2 feel it is marked 8/8 with the feel above the staff or 3+3+2/8. Similarly with other timing. — Todd Wilcox, Mar 01 '23 at 15:31
"...would need to be two tied eighths in a 3+3+2 meter." I'm glad you added that point. — Michael Curtis, Mar 01 '23 at 16:58

score 9 · Answer 2 · answered Mar 01 '23 at 15:59

In order to most clearly communicate a 3+3+2 feel, the "intuitive" right hand would need adjustment:

Beam the first three notes (dotted eighth, sixteenth, eighth) together;
Split the quarter note A into two tied eighth notes;
Beam the second of the new A eighth notes to the following sixteenth notes.
In m. 2, in the second group of three eighth notes, break the beam between the first and second.

Demonstrated below.

score 7 · Answer 3 · answered Mar 01 '23 at 14:03

The top one is correct, as @Richard answered. A little more information on the possibility of 3+3+2 being notated in 8/8 is this:

If this is a "pop" piece, which it sort of feels like to me, there is likely another insturment (bass/drums) that is playing on the beat. The proper way to notate the piano is exactly like this. The pianist would feel the 4/4 beat and treat your notation as a syncopation.
If the whole ensemble play the whole piece with this 3+3+2 feel, 8/8 time might be the best choice.

Regardless of which you choose, know that trained musicians at just about any level will play the top version correctly on the first try. It is perfectly clear and unambiguous. But there is a good chance that many trained musicians will be confused by 8/8 time and the unusual beaming of 3+3+2. So knowing who will play it is important. If it's to be played by a contemporary music ensemble, go for it - they're used to unusual time signatures. If it's to be played by someone who only ever plays pop music in 4/4, stay on the safe side and go with your top version.

Musicians (and conductors) trained in the last 20 years will have already played 8/8, 9/8, etc with custom feels written above. It’s all over the high school and university level band, orchestra, and chorale literature. To the point that a musician confused by 8/8 or 3+3+2/8 would not in my mind be fully "trained" yet. — Todd Wilcox, Mar 01 '23 at 15:35
Just to clarify, "the proper way to notate the piano is exactly like this"—meaning the top example, right? I read it the opposite on first take. And I would agree, even if there's some kind of strong "Viva la vida" syncopated rhythm going on, one reads it most easily when beamed in a way that shows the actual 4/4 beats. — Andy Bonner, Mar 01 '23 at 15:55

score 3 · Answer 4 · answered Mar 02 '23 at 08:33

Beaming and Slurring is not a question of music theory :). The rhythm in question is a common afro-cuban rhythm called tresillo and is basically a triplet aligned to eigth notes (so an unequal triplet). It quite common in modern pop music, and also one of the important rhythms of the Habanera or the Tango.

So let’s talk about notation: A time signature implies a meaning of weight, stress and articulation. 4/4 means that weight falls on each second 8th note (with the concept of weak beats and strong beats ignored). Thus it can make sense to notated the piece with a different structure. But then you should consistently keep to this structure as shown in @Aaron’s answer.

score 2 · Answer 5 · answered Mar 01 '23 at 15:59

The only problem I can see is that 3+3+2 may only run through part of the piece. Unusual to run all through, maybe. Only you know that. But if 4/4 prevails for at least half, go with that.

For me, the top version is easier to read, as the 'pushed' notes stand out. However, more and more, the lower version is being seen, and we'll probably just have to get used to it. Pity!

score 2 · Answer 6 · answered Mar 02 '23 at 02:37

2

I use this rhythm a lot; it's common in tango and lots of Lztin music. Tango theorists call the candle rhythm.

I looked at lots of tango and Latin scores. All use the dotted-quarter, eighth-quater tie, quarter. In most pieces, there other parts playing against this rhythm.The "theoretically correct" version is easier to read.

In many tango, the candles rhythm IA followed by a "marcato" rhythm, 4 even quarters. The "correct" version shows the contrast to the performer.

answered Mar 02 '23 at 02:37

ttw

24,207
1
31
76

Intrigued as to why 'candles'. – Tim Mar 02 '23 at 09:20
That's because I didn't catch my spellchecker before posting. The word is "candobe"; I used to know the meaning but I forgot. – ttw Mar 04 '23 at 20:00
More checking indicates I may have meant "Candombe," which relate to some Indian tribe. I found the term in "Apuntes de Tango," and I don't remember the author. I can do more when I get back home in April if anyone is interested. – ttw Mar 04 '23 at 20:05

score 0 · Answer 7 · answered Mar 02 '23 at 16:06

I have mentioned this point before elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here and try to apply it to your situation: The goal of typography in general is to be (1) correct, (2) consistent and (3) smooth/unnoticable/"invisible", in this order of importance.

Ad 1: All versions you can write are technically correct.

Ad 2: If the whole piece (or a relevant portion of it) is in the 3+3+2 rhythm (or any other one for that matter), I would consider grouping by 3+3+2 consistent and would just go for it. Note that it would mean the first bar right hand to be [8. 16 8] 4 8 ~ [8 16 16] and left hand 4. 4. ~ 4 to go with the grouping, which might feel rough (but smoothness has lower priority, so why not). I would keep the time as 4/4 as that's what many other people do for this sort of rhythm, but 8/8 is probably also fine. Also, I personally don't like the plussed time signatures like 3+3+2/8 as I think this information isn't necessary.

Ad 3: IMHO, grouping the whole piece 3+3+2 would look nice hence "smooth" in the end, and would be the easiest to read.

Bottom line: I don't believe in "theoretically correct", only in "technically correct" and "theoretically meaningful" :)

Btw, in most typesetting programs, you should be able to fine-tune the auto-beaming to do this. (Certainly LilyPond which I use can do that.)

I hope this helps further justify the similar suggestions from others.

Theoretically Correct vs Practical Notation

7 Answers7