3

EDIT: The questions below still apply, but here is an updated edit that I think looks a lot cleaner. Any thoughts?

EDITED

Regarding this piece with a 3+3+2 rhythm, I have a few more questions regarding notation. The measures in question start at 1:09 in this video: Aquatic Ruin Zone

  • Measure 60: I grouped the left hand in three groups that reflect this rhythm, and the center beat 3 is still visible due to the split voices. Is this notation more easily readable than the notation in measure 62?
  • Measure 61: has a total of 3 voices. Is this notation acceptable? Would it be better to add the red EFG to the left hand?
  • Measures 64-66: Would you suggest any kind of rebeaming of the eighth notes here? Or any other kind of change in notation?

Score measures 60 - 67

2
  • 1
    Speaking as a pianist, my personal preference is the notation on m60. It's neater and easier to understand. – Annie Jan 6 at 2:04
  • 1
    Thank you, that's what I was thinking, too! Also, I now have a new edit that I think looks a lot cleaner thanks to your input, I'll add it to the post. – Philip Walker Jan 6 at 2:27
1
  • I prefer the m. 60 beaming to that of m. 62. It better reflects the musical intention.
  • Your current notation in m. 61 seems best. It makes clear the voice(s) proceeding in thirds. To preserve that clearly, the alternative would be to keep the note placement as is, but stem the lower note of each pair with the left-hand. However, I think it's better (i.e., easier to read/interpret) as is.
  • The beaming in mm. 64 - 66 seems best to me, because again it reflects the musical intention. The melodic groupings move across, and take precedence over, the rhythmic ones.

The only minor quibble I can come up with is that in mm. 61 and 63, the flags on the initial eighth notes visually interfere with the following quarter notes. If the quarter notes could be nudged slightly to the right, I suspect that would take care of it, but acknowledging that could affect the placement of every other note on that line. IMO not worth the trouble unless it's a simple fix.


Update: With the new version posted, the visual quibble seems better. It seems like removing the extra stems on the downbeats took care of it.

2
  • Hi, thank you so much for your input! I just added a new edited version at the top of the post, do you think this one looks good? – Philip Walker Jan 6 at 2:31
  • Awesome, thank you so much! – Philip Walker Jan 6 at 2:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.