I know that in 4/4 beats 1 and 3 should be clearly indicated to make it easy to read. I just wanted to ask if this is only necessary if you use a lot of smaller note values like 8th or 16ths or is it also a must if you have quarters?
To me the first one looks unnecessarily messy, so is the second version also ok or should you always try to use the first version?
The first version is, without question, superior. This is because it clearly shows the midpoint of the measure, beat 3, which takes place with the eighth-note G. Contrast this with the second example, where beat 3 is just somewhere in the middle of the dotted-quarter G.
In other words, showing beats 1 and 3 in 4/4 time is ideal even if you mostly use quarter notes and eighth notes, not just smaller values like 16ths.
Some people have actually taken to call this the "midpoint rule" or the rule of the "imaginary barline," where good notation normally includes a dedicated note value that aligns with the midpoint of the measure.
For more on this concept, see What is the clearest way to notate this rhythm?
The point of writing any music out is to make it so that others can read it easily. Why else? So, with that in mind, clearly delineating the halfway point in 4/4 (and 6/8) mainly makes it easier to read. there seems to be a move away from that, sadly, but using the dots as in the first version alerts me to syncopation quicker than reading the second. the clue being the tie across the middle of the bar, making it a pushed note, just like the last quaver. true, the second isn't difficult to read, but if there are two ways, and one is easier, why choose the other?
With smaller denominations, going across the bar centrally is the same. Try not to do it.
