Michael Edwards wrote: [snip]
[snip]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.)
The use of nontraditional notation in any aspect is always open to the necessity of verbal explanation. Sometimes it is easy to explain in that manner and other times it is not easy to explain.
So the use of 3, 6, 12 to indicate the dotted-note beats would need explanation. What does a 3 mean? dotted-quarter, dotted-sixteenth, dotted-what? And the moment you add a verbal explanation, you might as well use a traditional time signature, one that wouldn't scare off people who didn't grasp its meaning immediately without reading the explanation, and simply use a verbal explanation of what you mean.
It is very easy to write 9/8 and simply add the words (count this with 3 dotted-quarter-note beats per measure).
There are a lot of fine musicians who won't look twice at a piece which seems not to make sense in the traditional notational sense. A time signature of 5/3 might well make people not look further at that piece but instead move onto a different piece they feel more comfortable with from the start.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
