Dotted quarter rest

I cannot find any setting to prevent D from notating dotted quarter rests, is that possible at the moment? If not, I’ll put it on my wish list for coming updates.

I know I can prevent it by using force duration, but it’s great limitation for the workflow.
(To me dotted quarter rests are a big no-no… :slight_smile: )

Notations options --> Rests

Apparently, values above dotted eights do not apply to the settings to disallow dotted rests in Notation Options/Rests.

I’m guessing this is because of them being more firmly established as a norm at this point than dotted rests of smaller values. I.e., you may often find scores that feature dotted rests for values of a quarter and above, but not below.

However, I do agree that there should be an option to eliminate dotted rests entirely.

Ah, now I found that setting. Strange, I’ve been looking there before but apparently missed it.
Dotted ok in compound meter and not in simple. It seems though as it doesn’t work when the music is notated in alla breve, as in this example. Is it a bug or are there more settings for this?

There’s no option specifically for 2/2. I’ll check with James tomorrow what he thinks about this issue.

I really hope this will be implemented even in alla breve. Especially since it basically is a 4/4 but you feel the pulse in 2. I can’t see why the notation standard should differ between these two.
As a musician, dotted quarters are a bit confusing to read in simple meters. The only dotted rests that works are, in my opinion, eight notes and shorter.

I don’t think 2/2 and 4/4 are really all that similar, other than the fact that the bars happen to be the same length. But it may well be that we can in due course provide an option to prevent showing dots on rests of a quarter or longer in length in simple meters.

My initial response was predicated on dotted rests not being mandatory even for compound meters. There is historical precedence for this, and they should be optional in all metric contexts, at least in the long term.

In the shorter term, though, I agree with Mats’ assessment.

It seems like some of the notation rules are flying under the radar in alla breve (2/2), as mentioned above.
How about this syncopations?

2/2 doesn’t have four beats in it, so those options for time signatures that contain a half-bar don’t apply. Dorico’s definition of a time signature that contains a half-bar is a time signature with four beats, or multiples of four beats.

Oki, I got it.
However, for readability reasons, I think that 2/2 should be considered as a 4/4 in notation terms, or at least have some options that covers those issues.

I know it’s possible to achieve this using lock durations as a workaround. But for future updates I think it’d be wise having some notation options even for 2/2.

I don’t dispute that we may want further options for 2/2, but I disagree that 2/2 should be treated the same way as 4/4. If you really think 2/2 is the same as 4/4, then I suggest you use 4/4 instead!

Well, of course I know the difference between 4/4 and 2/2! Musically they are two different worlds. This actual piece though is written in alla breve (cutc) and to me, alla breve and 4/4, should have the same notation rules.
There may be different rules when it comes to 2/2, but that is a time signature I’ve never used.

It’s quite possible that my musical education is deficient here, but to the best of my knowledge, the term alla breve is synonymous with the time signature 2/2. Perhaps you can help me to understand what you feel the differences are between alla breve and 2/2?

I’m terribly sorry if my earlier post sounded rude, that was not my meaning. My only intentions when writing on this forum are, first to ask when there are things I can’t find out on my own, and second, to discuss the things that seems to have been overlooked in the program.
When it comes to this issue you are of course right; 2/2 and Alla breve may be the same thing, but in my jazz world, I have never seen any score notated in 2/2. For this reason, I have no direct relation to that meter.

I’m not here to discuss the underlaying theory of meters. My only humble question and request was if there may be any possibilities to get some settings even for this meter in the future.
As I said before, to me these two meters are notated the same way, with the same rules. I may be wrong, but from my experience as a musician I know that, for example dotted quarter rests, are a bit confusing to read in simple meters. Right or wrong, in my parts I don’t like them for that simple readability reason. My only wish for the musicians that read and play my music is to make their day at the job as easy going and smooth as possible.

Once again, due to my lack of expression in English my earlier posts may have sounded rude, and that was not my meaning and I’m sorry for that!

Best wishes :slight_smile:
/ Mats

I try to avoid dotted rests in almost all cases in simple metre. FWIW I would avoid dotted quarter rests even more in 2/2, where they become equivalent to dotted eighths (in relation to the pulse).

I don’t think your earlier posts sounded rude in the least, Mats. I am just trying to get at the underlying issue here.

We do plan to add some further options for how rests may be subdivided in simple meters, which would apply to 2/2 (or alla breve, however you want to call it). We plan to provide an option that would determine whether any rest that crosses the half-beat should be broken (which would allow you to prevent a dotted quarter rest at the start of the beat in 2/2, for example), among other things. These options won’t be in the forthcoming 1.0.30 update but I expect we will be able to add them relatively soon.

Sounds great Daniel!

I hope that also will affect the syncope-issue mentioned earlier in this thread. (I.e. split notes so that the center of the bars becomes visible.) Maybe this isn’t by the book, but to me bar 3 & 4 in the pic below are easier to read irrespective of whether it is 4/4 or 2/2. I have not checked what Gardner Read has to say about the subject yet, but I will certainly do. :slight_smile:

I see the logic here, but this doesn’t seem to match the conventions of 17th/18th century notation.

Certainly “cut time” or alla breve had two pulses in the bar not four and was usually at a faster tempo, but conventions for writing rhythm in 4/4 and 2/2 seem to be identical. Because of the faster pulse, 16th notes in 2/2 are rare, but I can’t remember ever seeing them written with split-beams in groups of 8, which is Dorico’s default.

IIRC Lilypond has “non-standard” beaming rules defined for most of the common time signatures (certainly for 3/4, 4/4 and 2/2) overriding the “general” rules - but we all know that music notation isn’t logical!

FWIW I find MatsHall’s example of syncopation tied across the half bar harder to read and rather pedantic, unless the overall rhythm is more complex than the example given, but I don’t read many jazz scores. The “tied” version might be easier to read in a swing rhythm, I suppose.

I agree with you, Rob, that it in some cases might look a bit over pedantic with that notation. But when it comes to longer off-beat sequences, to me, the eye can sometimes be fooled by the quarters. For that reason I like to see where to put the foot on the 2nd beat.
I know this might sound a bit picky, but every wrong played note steals time of the rehearsal. For this reason I always want to make sure that the notation is so effective and clear as possible.