What's the difference?

What's the difference?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase_(music)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Your mum

>what is phrasing

notation

I'm pretty sure your supposed to group them in quarter notes, maybe that's just me though

On the top one you just play everything in one go as a single group, on the bottom one you make a slight pause between each 3-note group to make it evident they are meant to be 3-notes groups.
I also didn't just completely make that shit up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase_(music)

Do some research next time.

By joining them all, you are saying that together they equal a full beat. Split in two, that is two counts of the 3 beats.

Pretty sure the second one is wrong

ie. It would have to be 6/8, or you can't really count it

x o o o o o
x o o x o o

This image seriously fucking triggers me

no composer is dumb enough to write the bottom one

Neither of these are even right though. They both obscure the beat. The goal is to group notes so that the division of the metre is as clear as possible to the performer. If you want six eighth notes in 3/4 then you notate it as 3 groups of 2 eight notes, not one group of 6 or two groups of 3.

Like this? So there is no inherent difference other than making things clearer??

Why?

What this guy said

Pretty much. It makes sight reading easier because you can clearly visualise the beat in the notation.

You use slurs for that.

>Like this?

Yeah.

Like, the two examples in the OP are correct in that it's the correct number of beats, but if you're in 3/4 then the musicians playing your piece will likely be thinking of the piece and their part as being "quarter note gets the beat, three beats per bar" and the best way to express that across six eighth notes is three groups of two eighth notes since that's the equivalent of three quarter notes.

To my knowledge there's no real difference other than that, but it's pretty important if you ever want your music to be played.

your dubs will not save you from your underappriciation for music theory

but nevertheless...
> check'd

Yes, but a lot of composers dont really give a damn about the performers do they?

You should be able to make almost any configuration of a line or bar work, and I've seen scores that plainly show that the composer had zero fucks left to give

Well, yeah, you can break a shitload of rules in conventional notation and western music theory and get away with it, and people do it all of the time. But imo when you're first learning, which I'm guessing OP is doing, you should adhere to the rules a bit, then you can break them later.

true

You should study all of the composition work of Frank Zappa