#2
That's an eighth rest; for whatever reason, the person wrote in two parts. One note in voice 2 plays on beat 1, but there's a delay in voice 1 and said voice plays on the and of 1/beat 1.5.
#4
What are beats?

Listen to this:



The drums are accenting the beats. The bass drum plays on the first and third beats, the snare drum plays on the second and fourth beats. (Count out loud or clap along with the drums. Those are beats. Most of the time beats = quarter notes.) If you count "one, two, three, four", you are counting in quarter notes. You can add a note between the beats and count "one-and-two-and-three-and-four-and". This would mean you are counting in 8th notes.

What are voices?

This term comes from choral music. When there are multiple notes played at the same time, each of those notes could be seen as a different voice (because in a choir they would be sung by different people). In your example you should first play the open D string, and while your open D string still rings out, you should play the 2nd fret of your G string (on the "and" of one). You could see these as different voices. One of the voices would be holding that open D while the other voice would start with an 8th note rest and come in on the "and" of one.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#5
I'm just going to use the first song that came to mind:



The intro:
e|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
B|---1-----3-----6-|-----5-----5-----|--6--------------|-----------------|
G|-----------------|-----------------|---------0-----2-|-----2-----2-----|
D|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
A|-0-----2-----3---|---3-----3---3---|-5---------------|-----------------|
E|-----------------|-----------------|-------0-----1---|---1-----1---1---|
   1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +   1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +   1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +   1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +

The B and G-string notes don't play at the same time as the bass string (E and A) notes; they're playing separately, so think of the low strings as a bass part on the guitar and the higher strings as a treble part on the guitar. 2 parts at once = 2-part writing. There is a pause (rest) before the first B-string note plays; the pause is 1/2-beat. 1/2-beat when the beat is common time (4/4) is an 1/8-note

In written notation (bpm not really accounted for):
#6
NeoMvsEu
Not to be an ass (well, maybe ), but shouldn't that be written more like this? :
With the bass notes lasting for a dotted quarter, and the melody notes written as quarters rather than tied eighths. Plus they can probably be held when the bass stays on C and F.



The first thing I thought of like this was:


That could be written like this with two voices (bars 1-4), but maybe looks a bit weird, perhaps better using the let ring option (bars 5-8).

#7
NSpen1

It's easier to count tied eighths than quarter notes starting on an offbeat As for the other durations, the sound decayed fast enough for me to put rests in instead.

The preference of let ring might be a difference in past experience and is a guitar alternative to the first line's more precise transcription - this is what I'm used to seeing (related rhythm):



And the entire second part of this (before it goes to the DS al fine) is another example of two-part writing which includes some related rhythms (start at 2:41):

#8
Quote by NeoMvsEu
It's easier to count tied eighths than quarter notes starting on an offbeat

I'd disagree with that, I find quarter notes easier to read in this situation. The only place I wouldn't put a quarter note starting off the beat is across the middle of the bar. Pretty sure all the tab books/guitar mags I've seen would write an eighth + quarter + eighth combination like that, not with two eighths tied. It would be like writing 16th + eighth + 16th as a group of four 16ths with the middle two tied, just odd

Quote by NeoMvsEu
As for the other durations, the sound decayed fast enough for me to put rests in instead.

ok, but you probably wouldn't physically play it like that, removing your finger from the string to give a rest, but no big deal.
Either way, you probably should have the note values in each of your two voices adding up to a full bar

Quote by NeoMvsEu
The preference of let ring might be a difference in past experience and is a guitar alternative to the first line's more precise transcription

Yeah, obviously there's a lot of guitar stuff like that where chords are held and arpeggiated which is transcribed with the let ring convention, it's just easier to read most of the time. But I'm not sure how the first line with two voices is more precise than the let ring alternative in my example - as long as you remember that 'let ring' doesn't work perfectly and that for example the last C at the first fret shouldn't ring and neither should the A bass note continue to ring at the change to F. I always try to take account of details like that.

mmm, in your first piano example I wouldn't write the top line like that, I'd separate the beats, so 16th + eighth +16th > tied across to next beat. If you think about it, surely splitting an eighth across the centre of a bar has got to be 'worse' than writing a quarter off the beat? And you've got eighth notes all displaced by a 16th, analogous to writing quarters displaced by an eighth as I did.
#9
Quote by NSpen1
I'd disagree with that, I find quarter notes easier to read in this situation. The only place I wouldn't put a quarter note starting off the beat is across the middle of the bar. Pretty sure all the tab books/guitar mags I've seen would write an eighth + quarter + eighth combination like that, not with two eighths tied. It would be like writing 16th + eighth + 16th as a group of four 16ths with the middle two tied, just odd
Different schools of thought, agree to disagree

ok, but you probably wouldn't physically play it like that, removing your finger from the string to give a rest, but no big deal.
Either way, you probably should have the note values in each of your two voices adding up to a full bar
True, and it does add up fine - not all rests have to be notated, particularly when another voice plays at the same time and the spacing already implies the order of playing.

Yeah, obviously there's a lot of guitar stuff like that where chords are held and arpeggiated which is transcribed with the let ring convention, it's just easier to read most of the time. But I'm not sure how the first line with two voices is more precise than the let ring alternative in my example - as long as you remember that 'let ring' doesn't work perfectly and that for example the last C at the first fret shouldn't ring and neither should the A bass note continue to ring at the change to F. I always try to take account of details like that.
The two voices better illustrates how the bass notes go together and the treble notes go together as two different "melodies" that interact with each other; the "let ring" directive is a guitarist's shortcut to saying that the notes actually go until the next time the same string is played, which is effectively what the two-part writing already shows.

mmm, in your first piano example I wouldn't write the top line like that, I'd separate the beats, so 16th + eighth +16th > tied across to next beat. If you think about it, surely splitting an eighth across the centre of a bar has got to be 'worse' than writing a quarter off the beat? And you've got eighth notes all displaced by a 16th, analogous to writing quarters displaced by an eighth as I did.
Different considerations - 16th + 8th + 16th might be more compact, but it's easier to hear rhythm when broken into the smallest subdivision, particularly when sightreading (which I had to do a lot of when I was more actively doing piano and choral singing)
Relevant discussion thread: http://composersforum.ning.com/forum/topics/notation-of-syncopation

Which measure is easier to read?


It helps to not throw strong words like "surely" around a discussion around where opinion is concerned
#10
NeoMvsEu
First part - fine

Second part - ok, but it just looks like there's something missing to me, I'd prefer to have for example the bass notes lasting a dotted quarter (ideally), or put in the rests if you want to do it like that.

Third part - I definitely see how the two voices approach works better for your example, it would be a pain doing it accurately with "let ring" because you do want it to ring but not too much ... on the other hand I think I prefer the let ring for my example as it's more of a droning part and not so much a "melody" in each voice, although I'm getting used to how the two voices look there, doesn't seem so odd now (so maybe in a way it wasn't the best example, but was just thinking initially of the bass note then higher note following an eighth later.)

Fourth part - I wouldn't write it exactly as either of those. Surely ( ) having a grouping equal to five 16th notes (at least in 4/4 and not some weird time signature) is a big no no? I always work from the principle that - in 4/4 with 16ths or smaller divisions - every individual beat should be easily readable. Therefore no separating into groupings of fives and threes, etc, every grouping = the equivalent of four 16ths.

So it would be like this. I don't see any reason to tie the 16ths in the first beat
The way the fourth beat is displayed I don't have any strong feelings about, either way it's not the nicest thing to read but on balance I'd go for the version without the ties - possibly you could break the secondary beam of a 32nd there so as to make the
0-0---0- x2
rhythmic pattern more obvious.



Saying "surely" in a sentence with a question mark at the end is not equivalent to stating an opinion as fact, so I think it's alright
But here's what I'm trying to get at: your piano example is closer to the way of displaying the rhythm I used for Fade Away versus the way you did it with tied notes. Imagine you double the tempo and double the note lengths to get a bar of 4/4. Then bar 5 here is the original part in 2/4, bar 6 is how I would write it, bar 7 is the same thing translated to 4/4, bar 8 is how I would write it.
If you follow your pattern of using ties then you'd end up with it displayed as bars 9 & 10, which I can't imagine you'd want?



The link you give; I much prefer measure 2 but you probably already knew that.