Rest groupings (or not)

[sPretzel]

Hi,

This is not exactly a Finale question but a notation question and I hope some experienced forum members can share their advice on this topic.
I have some syncopated parts, mostly sixteenth notes, with rests. My question is: should I group rests, when possible, or leave them as sixteenth rests? There are a couple of scenarios in particular:
- The first three divisions of the beat are sixteenth rests. Should I write the first two as an eighth rest followed by one sixteenth rest or should I write all three as sixteenth rests?
- The last division of the beat is a sixteenth rest and the first division of the next beat is also a sixteenth rest? Should I group them as an eighth rest that crosses the beat or should I leave them as two individual sixteenth rests?

Thanks.

[David Ward]

Don't have an eighth rest cross the beat - probably: circumstances and notations vary, but without seeing the music in question, it would generally be safer to have two sixteenth rests, one either side of the beat.

On the beat it should be OK to have one eighth followed by one sixteenth making the total of one beat's rest.

[sPretzel]

Hi David,
Thanks for your input. The only reason I was wondering whether I should group the rests is because it makes the measure less cluttered. Otherwise, the sixteenth rests better represent the beat subdivisions and are more consistent with the notes (not rests) in the measure. But visually, neither solution looks very good in terms of showing the rhythmic structure of the measure (just too many notes and rests!).
Are your suggestions best practices or is the best practice to use all sixteenth rests in my case and forget about grouping any of them?

[Anders Hedelin]

Group the sixteenth rests on the beat, as David said. In that way there will be a difference between the rests: one eighth rest will tell it's on the beat, two sixteenth rests will tell they are not (or that the first one isn't).

It's also possible to group the two last sixteenth rests on a beat as an eighth rest. That seems rather contextual though.

[Peter Thomsen]

… visually, neither solution looks very good in terms of showing the rhythmic structure of the measure (just too many notes and rests!) …

To show the rhythmic structure you also have some beaming options:

Rests.jpg

[sPretzel]

Thanks Anders. That concurs with David and I am likely to go that route.
Hi Peter. I don't think I have come across that kind of notation before! It's a clever idea but I am not sure it is common. Along those lines, I was thinking why rests cannot be tied. I'll be on the lookout for the suggestion you made in the future, as I might simply have not noticed it. It does look a bit disjointed though, because the stem does not connect to the rest, but more so when the stem direction is flipped.

[Anders Hedelin]

sPretzel, I think that the notation in Peter's example is quite common in contemporary music. It's a rather clever, and simple, way of showing where the rests in complex rhythms belong.

I don't know of a rule that says it must be like that. I think that it may be a good idea in some cases, and in others slightly overkill. It depends on how irregular the rhythms are. And on the amount of sixteenth rests.

[Peter Thomsen]

… It does look a bit disjointed though, because the stem does not connect to the rest, but more so when the stem direction is flipped …

Beaming rests without displaying stemlets is also a solution.

You can choose, not to display the stemlets.
It is just a setting in
Document Options - Beams