4

To reduce clutter on the page it's common to replace { two eighth notes } with { one quarter note with a single slash on the stem } like this:

First example

But is it OK to do something similar for triplet eighth notes, like this:

Second example

I created this second image by editing a bitmap. The fact I couldn't find a way of doing this directly in Sibelius made me question whether Sibelius won't let you do this precisely because it's not legal notation.

So the question is - is this illegal notation and Sibelius is correct in not allowing you to create such notation. Or is this legal and there's a hole in Sibelius?

Improve this question
2
  • It's definitely legible in my opinion. I don't think it makes sense to put any stock in the capabilities of any notation software. New orthography is created all the time and even the most flexible software can't keep up. Commented 16 hours ago
  • A fascinating question! I agree with @ToddWilcox that it's legible, but as it's uncommon to find such notation you will probably have to clarify your meaning. From a percussion perspective I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes fairly common in a short period of time (as it has been suggested many times before). However, from a keyboard perspective the triplet-indicating "3" may be accidentally interpreted as a fingering. Commented 16 hours ago

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
4

Well, how conservative do you want to be? Notation changes over time.

You might even ask why you need to keep repeating the '3', as you would not for fully notated triplets.

Your slash shorthand seems both clear and logical to me. If you start with the fully notated triplet for one beat, then follow it with the slash shorthand, it should add further clarity.

One thing to consider is whether the most economical thing is to notate the full 3 note triple and omit the repeated '3', that's the common thing, or use your slash shorthand. It's possible that the repeated '3', potentially all over the place on the page, would become distracting. Given notation standards, numeric figures in a score tend to draw attention to some significance.

Even outside of music notation, text is a significant attention grabber. When I watch movies with my wife, whose mother tongue is not English, we put English subtitles on for her benefit, and I have a lot of trouble resisting reading them... even though I don't need to. That last part if my main point. It could become a distraction simply because it is text.

While I'm sure no one here would advocate this, and I wouldn't use it, I wonder: if this is normal...

enter image description here

...then why is reducing it further to...

enter image description here

...a problem.

Of course that is a rhetorical question. But it's the logical conclusion of shorthand reductions. And as circumventing the repeated text '3' issue, maybe it's a better proposal? If you were actually trying to change conventions.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    You must repeat the '3'. Otherwise your last example is a single triplet followed by three pairs of 8ths. Commented 10 hours ago
3

The problem with this notation is that it's not common enough to be clear without further explanation, but it's not notating a concept that's so complex it needs a special notation. In particular, without explanation I might well think that your slashed triplet crotchet meant six semi-quavers.

In short, I wouldn't write this without a really good reason to do so, and saving a bit of ink isn't one of them.

Improve this answer
3
  • Fair enough - in other words it fails the "huh?" test. Commented 15 hours ago
  • 3
    I'm not going to downvote or upvote but this notation is 100% clear to me - probably my own personal experience and opinion and it might not be generally clear enough to most musicians. @BrianTHOMAS If you keep the beaming instead of using tremolo notation then you probably already know you can omit the "3" in subsequent measures as the triplet rhythm will be understood. Commented 14 hours ago
  • 2
    I agree with Todd, the notation is perfectly clear, and it's economical for both ink and eyes. Commented 14 hours ago
0

It's acceptable, and Sibelius will do it. (And it plays back!) Write the triplet. Edit the first note to become a dotted quarter. The triplet and its bracket will appear 'inside out', it can be dragged the right way out again (hard to explain, easy to do. Just drag stuff round a bit). Add the slash, remove the bracket. If you prefer to show it as a plain quarter, drag the dot back underneath the notehead.

enter image description here

Improve this answer
-1

Yes, this is perfectly fine.

The canonical reference is Gould's Behind Bars, which explicitly describes this (right at the beginning of the chapter on tremolos, p. 219). Essentially it says to write out the first repetition, and after that you're good if you simply write a slash and the appropriate number.

Improve this answer
4
  • Could you please clarify your meaning? Commented 16 hours ago
  • Although the example shown here could be read as tremolo, it wouldn't be good if other notes were involved, I think. Commented 15 hours ago
  • Describes it how? In the affirmative? And caveats? Commented 12 hours ago
  • 1
    And… says what? The goal is for concern here to be fully self-contained. We can of course cite sources, but should save the questioner the legwork of going elsewhere for the actual answer. Commented 10 hours ago

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.