On 29 Jun 2005 at 14:32, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 29 Jun 2005, at 1:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > > You seem to think there's nothing inherently illogical about using > > 6/4 for a 3 subdivision. I think it goes against the whole > > organization of the way time signatures work, using something that > > clearly means one thing (2 beats) to mean something else for which > > there's another, simpler symbol (3/2). > > > > To me, it smells of borderline incompetence, a lack of comprehension > > of the way the notational system actually works. > > Oh come off of it. > > I recently wrote a piece in a slow (q=72) 6/4, subdivided in three -- > mostly. However, it frequently alternates between bars of 6/4 and > 4/4, or 5/4, or 7/4. > > It would have made absolutely no sense to use 3/2 for this, for any > number of reasons. For starters, the quarter note is the beat, not > the half note; the time signature changes would be needlessly > confusing and obscure what was actually going on if I alternated 3/2 > with 4/4; etc.
It wasn't in 3, therefore, no contradiction. I thought we were talking about 6/4 used for pieces that were primarily in 3 beats at the half note, and that's what prompted my suspicion of incompetence. If the meter is something else, then a different time signature is fully justified. Question: do you think a piece in 3 half-note beats should correctly be notated in 6/4? If not, then we're in full agreement. If so, then I'd like an explanation of why the time signature should be used that way. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
