I already fully understand that a dot adds half the duration of then note it is placed after to that note, and that a tie adds the duration of the note at the end of it to the note in front of the tie, but is there any way to add one fourth the duration of a note to a note using some kind of dot instead of a tie? (e.g. instead of writing a quarter note tied to a sixteenth note, a special type of dot is used.) I'm assuming that if there is, it is a triangle-shaped dot similar to the stacattisimo mark.

That's what I think too...Never seen or heard of that before (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though). And I think even if it does exist, Quarter note tied to sixteenth note is quite easy for everyone to read and therefore, such a thing would not be useful.

Rythm dots are generally simple (+0,5), double (+¾) or triple (+7/8). I don't remember ever seeing a triple-dotted note, but I know they exist.

So, maybe what you're talking about exists, but I don't see why you'd want to use that...

...Quarter note tied to sixteenth note is quite easy for everyone to read and therefore, such a thing would not be useful

That's true, however, a quarter note tied to an eigth note is also easy to read, but composers usually write a dotted quarter note instead because it is easier and faster to write (assuming he/she is writing the composition by hand). The reason I wanted to know wasn't for making the notation easier to read, but easier to write.

Well, from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), there's no rule saying I can't make up a symbol for it and indicating in the piece exactly what it means, right?

Well, if you actually did that, it would be quite confusing for anyone other than you reading the score.

The rythm dot system works like this : each time you had a dot, you add half the duration the previous dot added. No dot is full duration, simple dot adds half the duration, second dot adds half of what the first dot added and third dot adds half of what the second dot added.

Most used is simple dot, which is used VERY often. A symbol that would had ¼ of the note duration would not be used very often, thus there is no real need for one. If we had to create a symbol for everything in music, well, sheet music would be impossible to read...

Well, if you actually did that, it would be quite confusing for anyone other than you reading the score.

I don't think it would be that confusing... After all, the instruction would be written right in the score.

The rythm dot system works like this : each time you had a dot, you add half the duration the previous dot added. No dot is full duration, simple dot adds half the duration, second dot adds half of what the first dot added and third dot adds half of what the second dot added.

I already understand how dots work, but thanks anyways.

Most used is simple dot, which is used VERY often. A symbol that would had ¼ of the note duration would not be used very often, thus there is no real need for one.

A note that is held for only one fourth of its duration (stacattisimo) is also not used very often (at least, not that I've seen), and yet there is still a symbol for that. If there is a 'simple' symbol to add half the value of a note to a note, a 'simple' symbol to hold a note for half of it's duration, and even a 'simple ' symbol to hold a note for one fourth of it's duration, then why not make a simple symbol to add one fourth the value of a note to a note as well?

If we had to create a symbol for everything in music, well, sheet music would be impossible to read...

You do have a point...

Anyways, thanks for the replys.

I still think it would not be very useful.

And I think reducing ''staccato'' as an expression of time is note quite accurate. Staccato (and stacatissimo) is not just (actually, it's not even its main purpose) a time indication. It is an articulation an a style indication more than a time indication. But that is not the main subject of discussion here.

You asked our opinion, take it or leave it, but I just don't see the point in creating such a symbol. That's just my opinion.

<Added>

''an articulation and style indication'' sorry typo

I see what you are trying to do.
The answer is there is not a simple symbol for it.
Yes, you could make up your own symbol and place instructions for it at the begining of your piece.

The problems with instructions
1 - most people don't read them.
2 - many people forget them and default to what they know.

Before anyone yells at me, anyone who took or participated in any "new music ensemble" work would read instructions. I write reasonably qucikly and tieing the appropriate note is no big deal for me. But if you are doing a lot of it in every measure I can very much see why you would want the short cut. And if that is the case do write instructions.

Something I did see recently in a Bolcom piece was the actual rhythm notated as desired and then the words "sempre" meaning play the rest of the patterns the same way. Example:: triplet 8th notes Bolcom would place a brackett with a three in it above the notes. Then "sempre" meaning all 8th notes groupings are triplets. You could write a half-note tied to a 32nd note and then write sempre to indicate all half notes should be played this way. I would also include it in your instructions at the begining.

mmm, is diferent, is like say: g of f.

H is a note and key signature already.
"H moll"

regardless, someone had to invent the names we have for what we have now, so yeah, come up with an easier way, get it accepted, and live in infamy forever. I had to do harp pedaling sin color when I was in college and now I find out we don't do that anymore. Arggh, it was so clear.

A good rule to follow is this: Only invent a new notation as a last resort. You must first be satisfied that the thing you want is worth the trouble and can't reasonably be rendered with standard notation, and you must make an effort to discover if others have ever tried to notate that thing. If others have, their notation or notations constitute a precedent that must be given due weight.

If you must invent a new notation, try to base it on conventional notation and make it intuitively obvious to understand even without explanation (but do nevertheless provide explanation).

Something I did see recently in a Bolcom piece was the actual rhythm notated as desired and then the words "sempre" meaning play the rest of the patterns the same way. Example:: triplet 8th notes Bolcom would place a brackett with a three in it above the notes. Then "sempre" meaning all 8th notes groupings are triplets. You could write a half-note tied to a 32nd note and then write sempre to indicate all half notes should be played this way. I would also include it in your instructions at the begining.

Since you aren't clear about what Bolcolm is doing here (in your "example", that is), what you say has to be interpreted. Two possible interpretations come immediately to mind:

1) Triplet eighths are still beamed in groups of three, but Bolcolm has simply stopped putting 3's above the beams. This, of course, is standard notation and needs no "sempre".

2) Bolcolm intends swing or shuffle eighths. (Since Bolcolm is often involved with popular music, this would be in character.) Again, writing normal eighths to stand for swing or shuffle eighths is entirely conventional.

Neither interpretation logically gives anyone the slightest license to allow a half note to stand for a half note tied to a thirty-second note or any similar practice. In fact, there is no excuse whatsoever for the proposed notational neolgism and if attempted it will fully deserve the scorn with which it will no doubt be met.