On Jun 29, 2005, at 3:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If the meter is 6/4 and the subdivision is 3x2/4, then I'd say that
the meter is wrong, not "uncommon."
OK, you lost my support there. I see LOTS of divisions of all kinds of
things these days (and write them, too!) but wouldn't call them
"wrong."
What's the utility of using 6/4 instead of 3/2 for 3x2/4?
That would be like using 6/8 for the meter of 3 quarter notes (i.e.,
3/4). Nobody would do that, so why should they do it with 6/4?
Hmm. I think I see the problem with our communications.
In the kind of music Darcy and I mostly do (jazz and jazz-influenced
music) the quarter note has a special meaning and interpretation, as
does the eighth, which is not mathematically transposable to eighths
and sixteenths, at least not usually (it DOES happen, but usually needs
a special note to the performer, like "double time feel" or something
to indicate that the "normal" feel is altered.) The pulse IS the
quarter note most of the time in jazz, and it is as hard to communicate
swing sixteenths as it is to communicate swing quarter notes.
Obviously, there is nothing STOPPING anyone from swinging a quarter
note, but it is so contrary to the usual notation of jazz rhythms that
most musicians would have trouble with it if it showed up arbitrarily.
Part of the reason, I suppose, is that syncopations are so complicated
to notate (our system is badly set up for that) and they are so common
in jazz that we have settled on using mostly the same subdivisions all
the time, so as to reduce the number of different rhythmic notations we
are expected to be able to sight read effectively.
So you see that a bar of 3/2 showing up all of a sudden in a context of
medium jazz 4/4 is likely to cause a momentary confusion, more than 6/4
would. And I hope you see, too, that once one has started a /4
denominator, one must be very careful about what one does with the
denominator after that (to ensure clearest communication in a jazz
situation, that is.)
I could cite a couple of examples of jazz 6/4 without a clear 3+3
subdivision, but I wouldn't think they would mean much except to
specialists familiar with the repertoire. "All About Rosie" by George
Russell is one, "Down By The Riverside" arranged for Jimmy Smith by
Oliver Nelson is another one, "I Got What" which is I Got Rhythm
arranged by either Chuck Owen or Steve Owen (I forget which one) is a
third. Hihat on 2,4, and 6 in all these, more or less, which clearly
contraindicates a 3+3 subdivision.
Just to thoroughly discredit my own argument, though, here are two
exceptions. There are two pieces of common repertoire which are
ordinarily written in 6/8 (divided 3+3) with swing SIXTEENTHS – "All
Blues" by Miles Davis, and "Better Get Hit in Your Soul" by Charles
Mingus. In the case of the former, I am convinced that jazz musicians
read this in 6/8 for no other reason than because the first published
lead sheet was notated that way, without reference to Miles or any of
his musicians. In the case of the second, Mingus himself described it
as 6/8, but he never wrote it down for his musicians, preferring to
teach it to them by ear (that's a whole 'nother story). When Andrew
Homzy transcribed it and published it in the Charles Mingus – More Than
A Fakebook, he notated it in 6/4 (like two bars of jazz waltz) which I
thoroughly agree with, since it agrees more closely with conventional
jazz notation.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
