Classical pianist freaked when she saw my demisemiquavers!

I wrote this bluesy piano tune the other day. Ther was one bar in it that had a trill in it that I wanted to have a sort of lazy timing. After experimenting a bit, I found that the correct way to write what I had in m,ind, was to use dotted demisemiquavers. Demisemiquavers wouls have been to short and semiquavers were too long, but dotted demisemiquavers worked out perfectly.

On completing the piece, I placed it in front of a classical pianist I know - so she could play it through. She was okay till she got to that bar with all the dotted demisemiquavers in it! 'Hey, now hang on a minute!', she said... 'You can't use dotted demisemiquavers!' Surprised, (since I am quite new to writing music), I replied, 'Why the heck not??'. She said, 'Well, it just isn't done. I've been reading music for fifty odd years and I've never seen a dotted demisemiquaver before.'

I didn't want to argue about it, but the vact is, that the way I wrote it is the way I wanted it to sound. I don't think there is any other way to write it. Okay the timing was a bit unconventional in that bar, but Lord knows stranger stuff has been played and presumably written down...

Any comments. anyone?

Congratulations, Alan. If the music is written the way that your composition sounds, then who can argue with how you wrote it? Besides that, blues is notoriously quirky and breaks lots of rules anyway. If someone else can read the music and play what you've written the way you intended it to sound, well, that's the purpose of sheet music, right?

Cheers,

The ''classical'' way is to write them as 21-plets or something similar.

Doesn't the Arietta from Beethoven's Op. 111 use something similar - a gigue-like, ternary rhythm with demisemis against semis? There's nothing wrong with what you're doing.

Yes, that's what I thought. I'd be happier if there was a way of wrting that bar so that it didn't flummox the average pianist though...

Thanks for confirming that. It would be nice if there was a way of writing it so that it didn't trip the average pianist up though... What I actually have in this bar is six semiquavers followed by 12 dotted demisemiquavers (4 identical groups of C#,B,A) followed by one semiquaver. Time sig is 4/4.

Hi That's an interesting comment; thanks. What I have in this bar is six semiquavers followed by 12 dotted demisemiquavers (4 identical groups of C#,B,A) followed by one semiquaver. Time sig is 4/4.

For easier reading, I would group that as four semiquavers followed by two semiquavers followed by a semiquaver 13-plet.

Unfortunately, that would change the timing of the notes within that bar too much. Semiquavers are too long in duration and demisemiquavers are too short. Dotted demisemiquavers on the other hand, have exactly the right duration for use in this particular trill (or repeated-arpeggio).

Alan

Are you sure? A semiquaver 13-plet in this context is 13 notes in the time of 10 semiquavers:

Demisemiquavers: 3.125% of a 4/4 bar Dotted demisemiquavers: 4.6875% of a 4/4 bar 13-plet: 4.8077% of a 4/4 bar Semiquavers: 6.25% of a 4/4 bar