Hello, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Simon Wascher wrote: > > > why if the beat changes with the meter, the meter (M:) isnt the field > > which defines by its content (I do *not* mean to add an extention to > > it) what Allegro (~120 beats per minute) means. > > However, if the note value of the beat is compound (dotted), there is no > whole number that can represent it accurately, so a smaller note value has > to be used. For instance, if the composer intended two beats per measure, > with a dotted-quarter beat, the only accurate way to write it would be > something like 2/2.6666666... For obvious reasons, we write 6/8 instead. > > The problem is that by doing this, traditional notation breaks its own > rules. 6/8 time seems to imply that there are actually six beats per > measure, and that the eighth note defines the beat.
to me as an traditional musican, this is not a broken rule its simply an special rule to dotted rhythms: 3/8 equals one beat. so if I want to write three beats in dotted rhythms I use 6/4 time. One problem is with 5/8 which has two beats (3+2 or 2+3 ; I do not know how to fit this into a classical "allegro" recipe) wheras 5/4 has five beats :-) . And to complicate the > matter further, sometimes this *is* what the composer intended. composers ask for everything and the opposite, composing is mainly a game about establishing rules to break them. > The question at this point seems to be whether we want the standard to get > it right all of the time (define Allegro as 120, define the beat for each > piece); get it wrong only sometimes (define Allegro as 120, guess at the > beat); or get it wrong a great deal of the time (define Allegro as > 1/4=120, even in 6/8, damn the beat). I think in most cases defing allegro to the beat given in the M: field under the presumtion that 3/8 = one beat will be sufficient in 95% of all cases. In other cases the transcriber has to redefine the beat. > > I belive it is not really neccessary to define the beat of allegro in > > Balkan music (like 3+3+2), I've never heard of such a definition in > > any other music notation context. > > This kind of thing happens quite often in newer compositions, usually > implied by the note beaming, but sometimes written out explicitly in the > meter (e.g., 3+2 over 8 instead of 5 over 8). Some notation software > allows this... I believe Finale is one of them. Yes, yes of course, I use this stuff too. What I wanted to say is "I've never heard of a definition for *"allegro"* in 3+3+2 rhytms in any other music notation context (a definition for a correct tempo for *allegro* in 3+3+2 time ). No question compound rhythms *do* exist (and Finale supports them). It seems I did not write too clear. Simon Simon Wascher - Vienna, Austria http://members.chello.at/simon.wascher/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
