Finale Forum

Hello
Is this clear and acceptable or is there a better way to notate this?
Thanks in advance

Unless there is a reason for doing what you've done, I would rather see the layer 2 notes with stems up. Or just swap layer one and layer two in that measure. Remember, it all prints in black!

Instead of a double-dotted half note, I would have notated this as a half tied to a dotted quarter.

As RMK said, tied half note to dotted quarter for layer two.
I I wouldn't alter the stem direction since it obviously shows a voice crossing, however, I would move the whole note in the first measure away from the stem of the layer 2 note to make it clear that it is not sharing that stem. Move it only enough to leave a small space between the whole note and the stem.

I don't see that this is crossing voices, necessarily. If not, then the stems should be up. I think Mike's suggestion about switching the layers will be the best option.

Zuill

I am going on the presumption that the original poster wants the 1st G to go up to the E, and the D# to go down to the G in the next measure. Ergo, voice crossing, common enough in orchestral writing.
Without the larger context of the passage it's impossible to say whether in this case the voice crossing is justified or not, or even necessary.
But let's go on the presumption that it is.
The answer to the original post remains the same: turn the double-dotted half into tied notes, and simply separate the 1st whole note from the stem of the half note.

If this is piano writing, then sure, switch the layers and stem directions, because it makes no sense to have a notated voice crossing that will make no audible difference.

I can agree about the voice crossing regarding stem direction and needing a gap between the stem and the whole note. This looked more like piano writing.

My guess, because it has occasionally happened to me, that the poster put in all the whole notes first, then proceeded to the different rhythm. Considering that most of the notation appears to be in layer 1, then the next choice, layer 2, would be chosen. However, the default settings are for stems up layer 1, stems down Layer 2.

Since the poster is posting in the forum for Beginners, I'm guessing that settings like layer stem position is less known to a beginner, so this common scenario can lead to confusion about whether Finale is notating in the customary way, which is not necessarily the case. I believe the default settings assume a user would put the upper voice in Layer 1 and the lower voice in layer 2.

Zuill

Not enough context to know if it's voice crossing, but absent more I would think the D# leads to the E rather than dropping an augmented fifth to replace a note that's already in another voice. Perhaps detlef is asking about the double-dotted half note.

Hey thanks for the replies. Yes, it is intended as piano score.
So this is a better option then?

Or the attached.

Zuill

I prefer the OP's revision because you can see the middle of the measure.

It just looks cluttered to me. I guess the context would help to decide. What's going on in the treble staff?

Zuill

P.S.: Bridging the mid-point of a measure is more common than not in the classical piano literature. Also, double dots or extremely common.

As a singer, the OP’s revision is more clear. But if piano rules are more applicable, Zuill wins!

detlef wrote:Hey thanks for the replies. Yes, it is intended as piano score. So this is a better option then?

Yes, definitely. Clear voice leading is always a plus.

The visibilty of the measure's two halves (your solution) as opposed to Zuill's solution is another topic. Both are good and perfectly redable, but my impression is I do see yours more often than Zuill's. At least here in Germany. Neither Vinci nor Chlapik (the two who reside on my bookshelf) do discuss that.

Harald

FWIW I like the double dots.

I suppose if the music is rigidly beat driven, then showing the middle of the bar is a good idea; but if it is expressive and potentially slightly flexible, I see nothing wrong with the double dots, which also avoid the clutter of a tie.

David Ward wrote:FWIW I like the double dots.

I suppose if the music is rigidly beat driven, then showing the middle of the bar is a good idea; but if it is expressive and potentially slightly flexible, I see nothing wrong with the double dots, which also avoid the clutter of a tie.

I agree.
By avoiding the tie you can follow the (quite pleasant) principle of {1 sounding tone <=> 1 written note}

Peter Thomsen wrote:I agree.
By avoiding the tie you can follow the (quite pleasant) principle of {1 sounding tone <=> 1 written note}

thanks good rule to keep in mind.
This is what's going on in the top staff

Music notation is a language of many nuances. All the versions are "correct" but the best choice might also hinge on the intended use and situation. For example:

If this were an orchestral part, showing the middle of the measure is safest since the musicians might be sight-reading and error-avoidance is at a premium.

Were this educational piano music, showing the middle of the measure would be best, unless this were an exercise in double-dotted notes.

If a concert piano solo, the double dotted notes would be OK to simplify the notation especially if something more rhythmically defining were going on in another voice.

I think that Zuill's version would only be used to show something special, perhaps in another voice. But this is not the case in your piece.

There is also the genre. Your piece seems to be in a semi-popular style. Double-dotted notes might be considered esoteric in this style.

I respectfully disagree about my example, from many years and examples from traditional literature.

But then, this is a forum, and disagreements are expected.

Zuill

John Ruggero wrote:… … …If this were an orchestral part, showing the middle of the measure is safest since the musicians might be sight-reading and error-avoidance is at a premium… … …

There are triple dots across entire bars in Bruckner symphonies. They don't cause a problem, even at first rehearsal (in my experience).

In the Bruckner you've got around 90 people playing fff in octave unison. A more complex texture with cross rhythms would discourage any use of triple dots.

I've never seen why in a simple meter such as 4/4 it should be necessary to show the middle of the bar (it has nil effect on my own sight-reading), but it seems to be what many prefer.

In my example, I didn't demonstrate double dots, but tying to the 4th beat, whish is extremely common. However, a double dot in the given example would be fine.

Showing the mid-point of the measure is useful in many situations, but not all. If that were important, then we would see, for example, a half tied to a quarter, followed by a quarter, instead of a dotted half followed by a quarter. That would be such a strain on the eye. if a person doesn't understand a dotted half followed by a quarter, then we're all in trouble.

Zuill

P.S.: Needing to see the mid point of a measure would mean that the first measure in my sample would be preferred to the second. I whole-heartedly disagree. P.P.S.: My second example is a follow-up. I prefer the second measure. The first is too cluttered.

zuill wrote:But then, this is a forum, and disagreements are expected.

...and what make these forums so interesting and informative for all concerned.

I went looking for the through a bit of the standard solo piano literature for the rhythm in question. It was not easy to find.

Here is one showing the center of the measure from Mozart's Sonata K. 533: The right hand syncopation and left hand upper voice makes this preferable. Here is one from Chopin's posthumous Nocturne in C# minor with the "Zuill" rhythm. Here the left hand provides the "center" so the the right hand can do the more natural thing and show the trill as a long continuous note without accentuation on the third quarter note ending with a written-out after beat. Another reason for the tendency to use a central division of 4/4 might be that it is more "rational", given no contrary considerations, to divide the measure into halves rather than into 3/4 + 1/4.

My remark about the orchestral parts reflected my experience with A. Arnstein, who tended to use the safest notation, not knowing who would be playing the parts and when. In the case of David Ward's Bruckner example, the triple-dotted notes are clearly the preferable way to notate this and as he implies, the context presents no issues for experienced musicians. Were this situation to occur in a piece for high school band, however...

Interesting that the Mozart L.H. shows the measure mid-point, but not the R.H.

So, anything goes, it appears. That's why it is so hard to really use the literature for examples. The literature is quite inconsistent.

Zuill

zuill wrote:Interesting that the Mozart L.H. shows the measure mid-point, but not the R.H.

As I mentioned, the middle of the measure is intentionally obscured in the right hand because it is syncopated and only an elaborate version of the rhythm: quarter-half-quarter. The left hand does the job of clarifying the middle of the measure, just as the left hand does the job in the Chopin excerpt.

I wouldn't agree that "anything goes" or that these composers are being inconsistent. They are using notation in quite appropriate ways to deal with complex situations.