[David W. Fenton, referring to 6/8 used for two beats:]
>>There is not a 2 on top because there's no single digit to represent
>>the dotted half not that could be the bottom number.
[Brad Beyenhof:]
>There's always the semi-modern method of placing a digit over an actual
>note (2/dotted quarter, etc.) to represent this.
>
>Then again... we're used to the old way, and why fix what ain't really
>broke? :)
It's not quite infallible, though, for some rather uncommon metres.
Take, for instance, metres based on having 6 beats in the bar. If you want
to have 6 simple beats in the bar, let's say crotchet (quarter) beats, you could
use either 6/4 or 3/2. The former would indicate 2 groups of 3 beats, and the
latter 3 groups of 2.
To be sure, these time signatures also indicate 2 dotted-minim beats and
3 minim beats respectively - but I don't see that as a problem, since the music
itself would convey what note-value should be treated as the beat.
But what if you wanted 6 *compound* beats in the bar? Presumably you would
use 18/8 - but are they 3 groups of 2 beats, or 2 groups of 3? I can't think of
any way out of this but to use 18/8 for both situations, and to hope the music
itself conveys the grouping of those beats. (If it doesn't, write a footnote to
say which grouping you want.)
This is a rhythm I have been attracted to more than once, so it is a bit of
an issue for me, albeit it a rather minor one.
Of course you could use either 6/4 or 3/2 and just indicate triplets; but I
am assuming here that the triplets are constant and that you want to use a time
signature that accurately represents the actual meter in use - and the constant
use of triplets in any simple metre doesn't really do this. I dislike the use
of triplets when they are invariable for a whole passage, because it means I'm
not really using the correct metre. I always use 9/8 rather than 3/4 with
constant triplets, for instance; 12/16 rather than 4/8 with triplets - and so
on.
However, to sort out things like this would require the entire system to be
redesigned, and I don't feel this is warranted, at least not for the kind of
music I write, where traditional notation is quite adequate 99 per cent of the
time. But it does occur to me that an alternative system would be completely
clear and quite flexible to cover all sorts of odd metres.
You could indicate the beat in the bottom half by an actual note, as
suggested by Brad. This could include dotted notes, doubly-dotted notes, or
even tied notes such as a crotchet and a semiquaver, if you wanted a beat that
always subdivited into 5. (It might be better, though, to coin a special symbol
to suggest adding to a note a quarter of its value, if it was going to be
constantly used throughout a passage, rather than have all those tied notes.)
On the top of this new-style time signature, you would simply put a number
indicating the number of these beats you want. This could include fractions, or
numbers added together to indicate a particular grouping of beats (4 1/2,
3 + 3 + 2, 3 + 3, 2 + 2 + 2, etc.).
I can't fault it logically - but it just looks odd enough to me that I
would shy away from it unless I really felt it was necessary for what I was
doing.
What about the odd method I mentioned earlier of using 3, 6, 12, etc. to
refer to dotted-note beats? Is it that odd or illogical that it attracted no
comment? (I don't advocate it - I just saw it once in a score, and was curious
to know if there were any arguments in favour of it.)
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
