Beaming in 3/4 time

[(poco) Sforzando]

I have been taking part in a lively and sometimes frustrating Internet discussion about beaming notes in 3/4 time. Some have been arguing that only pattern 1 is acceptable in 3/4, as pattern 2 implies 6/8 and is difficult to read in 3/4. Others have pointed to numerous examples where major composers have used pattern 2 in 3/4 time and it is not in the least difficult to read as long as the context makes the intended beat patterns clear.

Musicians here, your thoughts?

[Karl Henning]

I have been taking part in a lively and sometimes frustrating Internet discussion about beaming notes in 3/4 time. Some have been arguing that only pattern 1 is acceptable in 3/4, as pattern 2 implies 6/8 and is difficult to read in 3/4. Others have pointed to numerous examples where major composers have used pattern 2 in 3/4 time and it is not in the least difficult to read as long as the context makes the intended beat patterns clear.

Musicians here, your thoughts?

Nothing wrong with two, I find no "implication" of compound time.

[relm1]

#1 is easier to read and #2 looks more like 6/8.  Also, 3/4 might generally be interpreted slightly differently with a strong beat on the 1.  6/8 would have a strong beat on the 1 and 4.  I'd also add with music this simple, it's not that big an issue but in more complicated rhythms becomes a big deal if not beamed intuitively.

[Roasted Swan]

No.1 for 3/4 is preferable although No.2 would not be that off-putting since you'd be hearing the 3/4 pulse as opposed to the 2 beat 6/8 in any other instruments.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I can think of numerous examples where composers have used #2 in 3/4 time, with no implication of 6/8:

(I can think of a few where there might be an ambiguity, but more on that later. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. As a general practice, composers beam the three eighth notes together.)

[Karl Henning]

And of course, this being music, there will be no unanimity of opinion 🙄

[(poco) Sforzando]

This is however one example that I find ambiguous:

I always found the dotted quarter-three beamed eighths to sound like 6/8 here. Obviously the time signature is 3/4, and later passages in the movement are unmistakably in that rhythm. But there is nothing in the string writing accompanying the oboe/clarinet melody here that would clearly suggest 3/4. And the conductor cannot make accents to emphasize the 3/4. Intentionally or not, this passage feels like a rhythmic ambiguity to me.

[Karl Henning]

Interesting! I've never heard it that way,  but insofar as it may be so heard, I should say that ambiguity is an aspect to be embraced, and I should not find myself pressed to modify the notation. There are, indeed, plenty of pieces where that "triple simple time, or duple compound time?" ambiguity is indeed a feature, and no bug.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I can't believe how many ppl on the other discussion simply assume that $2 is always in 6/8, and that it is wrong to say it can signify 3/4. No matter how many examples I provide giving unmistakable proof that composers almost invariably use #2 in 3/4, these posters keep on persisting. Have none of these ppl ever looked at a score?

[Karl Henning]

I can't believe how many ppl on the other discussion simply assume that $2 is always in 6/8, and that it is wrong to say it can signify 3/4. No matter how many examples I provide giving unmistakable proof that composers almost invariably use #2 in 3/4, these posters keep on persisting. Have none of these ppl ever looked at a score?

Or played in an ensemble?

[VonStupp]

Musicians here, your thoughts?

Just at a casual glance, I would probably subconsciously emphasize the two beamed examples differently on an initial read.

In #1, I would originally think of the first eighth note as a pick up into the 3rd beat, therefore giving a slight emphasis to the third beat of the measure (or the 2nd eighth note). In #2, I would probably emphasize the first eighth note, with the following two eighth notes sounding subsidiary to the initial movement.

Knowing it is in 3/4, on the other hand, I would err towards the time signature rather than the barring, depending what is going on around it.

But I mention this merely casually. Once you get to know the music, how publishers or composers bar their music, and adding in any surrounding accompanying figurations or slur lines to help the musician know what the rhythmic intent may be, I really don't care how someone bars their music. Once the music is in my lap, though, I get to do with it as I wish! 
VS

[Luke]

I can't believe how many ppl on the other discussion simply assume that $2 is always in 6/8, and that it is wrong to say it can signify 3/4. No matter how many examples I provide giving unmistakable proof that composers almost invariably use #2 in 3/4, these posters keep on persisting. Have none of these ppl ever looked at a score?

One of the most beautiful things about music notation is how malleable it is, and how the 'rules' can be broken and bent for reasons of expressive implication. A composer's use of notation tells us so much more than just how the notes are to be played; they tell us how it is to be felt too. What saddens me is how under-appreciated this fact is, including by musicians themselves, for example those you are referring to in the passage I just quoted.

Your example 1 is correct, and in general your example 2 would be used in 6/8. Everyone gets that. But, as someone said above, example 1 implies a slight extra weight on its 3rd note which example 2 doesn't. Therefore example 2 is a useful alternative in many situations. The rest of the music should make the 3/4 vs 6/8 question clear in any case

My favourite examples of this kind of intuitive, technically incorrect but expressively revealing notations are in Janacek. I've attached a couple [Edit meant I had to change the order of the two images, so for first read second etc] .

In the first, from near the end of Katya Kabanova, Janacek indulges in some very fluid notation in which eighth and quarter notes can have identical duration (1 and 2) or in which the quarters can actually be faster than the eighths (2 and 3). This isn't exactly wrong but it is the product of a mind inspired by expressive truth rather than notational logic. I love it!

In the second, from the second quartet, the music could lose nothing from a simpler notation in 2/4. This is a self-contained paragraph at a different tempo from what comes before or after. The only reason for the use of duplets in 3/4 is that earliet on he uses the same whilst there are oscillating eighths in accompaniment, but they're not here, the accompaniment is static so 2/4 is fine. The only real reason to use 3/4 here is to encourage the players still to feel an underlying 3 even though none of them are actually playing it.

Notation is a wonderful thing!Not a valid attachment ID.

[Jo498]

I am a layman and it's over 20 years since I last played clarinet.
But I think these notations are perfectly equivalent, unless context or an explicit sign like f, fp, sf or > suggest a different stress on the first 8th note. i.e. it should be unstressed and not 6/8-like unless clearly indicated by sign or context.
E.g. in a fast (like waltz) tempo I think #2 would be frequently used without ever suggesting a difference to the 1-2-3 of 3/4.
Edit: I didn't see the examples before but the LvB op.132 finale is a perfect example for a fast waltz-like tempo where despite syncopation in the accompaniment there is no suggestion of 6/8 whatsever in that main theme with the 3/8 figure)

[(poco) Sforzando]

I am a layman and it's over 20 years since I last played clarinet.
But I think these notations are perfectly equivalent, unless context or an explicit sign like f, fp, sf or > suggest a different stress on the first 8th note. i.e. it should be unstressed and not 6/8-like unless clearly indicated by sign or context.
E.g. in a fast (like waltz) tempo I think #2 would be frequently used without ever suggesting a difference to the 1-2-3 of 3/4.
Edit: I didn't see the examples before but the LvB op.132 finale is a perfect example for a fast waltz-like tempo where despite syncopation in the accompaniment there is no suggestion of 6/8 whatsever in that main theme with the 3/8 figure)

All true, but it's not just a matter of tempo or a waltz-like character. See my examples above from Brahms 2, Mahler 1, and Beethoven op. 7. The Beethoven is from a Largo slow movement - nothing waltz-like there at all. The dotted quarter + three beamed eighths/quavers is standard practice from composers throughout musical history.

(I have another interesting exception that I'll post later.)

[Karl Henning]

One of the most beautiful things about music notation is how malleable it is, and how the 'rules' can be broken and bent for reasons of expressive implication. A composer's use of notation tells us so much more than just how the notes are to be played; they tell us how it is to be felt too. What saddens me is how under-appreciated this fact is, including by musicians themselves, for example those you are referring to in the passage I just quoted.

Your example 1 is correct, and in general your example 2 would be used in 6/8. Everyone gets that. But, as someone said above, example 1 implies a slight extra weight on its 3rd note which example 2 doesn't. Therefore example 2 is a useful alternative in many situations. The rest of the music should make the 3/4 vs 6/8 question clear in any case

My favourite examples of this kind of intuitive, technically incorrect but expressively revealing notations are in Janacek. I've attached a couple [Edit meant I had to change the order of the two images, so for first read second etc] .

In the first, from near the end of Katya Kabanova, Janacek indulges in some very fluid notation in which eighth and quarter notes can have identical duration (1 and 2) or in which the quarters can actually be faster than the eighths (2 and 3). This isn't exactly wrong but it is the product of a mind inspired by expressive truth rather than notational logic. I love it!

In the second, from the second quartet, the music could lose nothing from a simpler notation in 2/4. This is a self-contained paragraph at a different tempo from what comes before or after. The only reason for the use of duplets in 3/4 is that earliet on he uses the same whilst there are oscillating eighths in accompaniment, but they're not here, the accompaniment is static so 2/4 is fine. The only real reason to use 3/4 here is to encourage the players still to feel an underlying 3 even though none of them are actually playing it.

Notation is a wonderful thing!Not a valid attachment ID.

An enriching,  enlightening post, as ever. Thanks!

[(poco) Sforzando]

example 2 is a useful alternative in many situations.

But here I would put things more strongly: example 2 is in fact the primary method composers use to express this rhythm in 3/4 time. In examining scores from Handel (Messiah) through Richard Rodgers (the Carousel Waltz) I find that almost all the time, composers use dotted quarter/crotchet + three beamed eighths/quavers to notate this rhythm. I rarely find things beamed as in example 1, though I think I remember it from a piano suite by Hindemith, but who wants to look up piano music by Hindemith.

I have found one exception in Chopin - where he he ties the initial quarter/crotchet to beamed eighths/quavers. I wonder what beaming things this way does for the player (similarly, I wonder why Beethoven chooses to beam two tied eighths rather than a single quarter in the countersubject of the Great Fugue, though the piece is unimaginable being notated any other way, and Beethoven preserved this notation in the 4-hand piano version).

[Roasted Swan]

Anybody considered that it might be the engraver who "happened" to choose the visual layout?  Has anyone compared manuscript originals to printed versions to see if the published version is an accurate representation of whatnthe composer wrote?  I have no idea if this is the case or not but wonder if this is being overthought......!  Both "work" - I'm not convinced in many cases that there is an intention by the composer to indicate a change of stress within a bar.

[Luke]

I suppose Chopin's notation emphasizes the fact that this rhythmic motive is a single idea daaaaadadada rather than, say, daaa__dadada, if that makes sense; that the Db grows out of the C rather than initiating the movement away from it. It ensures that our fingers stick to the keys. It's a good example of that blessed flexibility that notation encourages in sensitive composers.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Anybody considered that it might be the engraver who "happened" to choose the visual layout?  Has anyone compared manuscript originals to printed versions to see if the published version is an accurate representation of whatnthe composer wrote?  I have no idea if this is the case or not but wonder if this is being overthought......!  Both "work" - I'm not convinced in many cases that there is an intention by the composer to indicate a change of stress within a bar.

That is always, always, always an issue! Same as with editions of Shakespeare. For example, in the Handel "And the glory of God" chorus, I have seen an edition where the beaming is as in example 1. And you can see other editorial tampering such as the two even eighth notes on the singers' F#. But the facsimile of the manuscript shows that Handel followed example 2, and so do both the popular Schirmer vocal score and the latest Eulenburg miniature score. Sad to say, unless you have access to a fascimile of the primary sources or a reliable Urtext, you can never be 100% positive you're seeing what the composer wrote. And the performers of course are always introducing changes and emendations of their own as well.

[Jo498]

When one writes with quill pen dipped in ink every few notes the one beam all through notation must certainly be easier as fewer pen strokes are needed.

I remain puzzled that this was a contentious discussion in the first place. The notations are almost always equivalent and almost never is the second option indicating an ambiguity or a quasi-6/8 unless other strong indicators support this.

The strange notation with 8th notes in the first fugue in op.133 is a different case; I am pretty sure that this must indicate some kind of articulation, e.g. a very slight stress difference or something else with the bow (I know nothing about string playing, so I don't have any clear ideas) but what is meant exactly seems unfortunately not clear.