Bongo Boy
10-04-2002, 04:12 AM
I found the following notation in my fake book (see the 1st bar below). I'm puzzled by the selection of two tied 8ths, rather than selecting a single 4th, as I've shown in the 2nd bar. Is there a solid reason for this?
Second question with regard to bars 3 and 4. The composer has shown two bars, each with a whole and a half, but those two notes indicated as a triplet.
The intent, I think, is to play a single triplet that has total count of 8 (that is, three notes each with a duration of 8/3 of a beat). Is that correct?
If so, why can't you write a single triplet bracket across the two bars--instead of this notation? I mean, it almost suggests two triplets (two brackets)--in fact, since you're already abusing the meaning of the note anyway (you're using wholes and 1/2s, but their actual value is overridden by the bracket), why not just use 'x' notation?
Second question with regard to bars 3 and 4. The composer has shown two bars, each with a whole and a half, but those two notes indicated as a triplet.
The intent, I think, is to play a single triplet that has total count of 8 (that is, three notes each with a duration of 8/3 of a beat). Is that correct?
If so, why can't you write a single triplet bracket across the two bars--instead of this notation? I mean, it almost suggests two triplets (two brackets)--in fact, since you're already abusing the meaning of the note anyway (you're using wholes and 1/2s, but their actual value is overridden by the bracket), why not just use 'x' notation?