On 29 Jun 2005 at 23:23, Owain Sutton wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 29 Jun 2005 at 21:46, d. collins wrote:
> >
> >>David W. Fenton écrit:
> >>
> >>>Maybe I have insufficient imagination.
> >>
> >>I haven't followed the whole thread, but, speaking of tradition,
> >>let's not forget that of the French courante, where 6/4 (and 3/2) is
> >>used for _alternating_ patterns of 2x3/4 and 3x2/4 (though the first
> >>is generally prevailling). In Bach's courantes in the French style,
> >>the beaming may reflect this alternation (see the French Suite in B
> >>minor, for instance), and sometimes each hand can even have its own
> >>pattern.
> >
> > My earliest posts in this thread cited music that constantly shifts
> > between alternate subdivision patterns, but I thought we were
> > talking about music *without* such shifts.
> >
> > I still don't see any cases where I'm convinced that 6/4 is an
> > appropriate meter for a piece that moves entirely in three half-note
> > beats.
>
> Your challent seems somewhat problematic - "of music which uses minim
> beats, how many examples can you find which use dotted minim beats?"
Well, first off, it's not a challenge.
Second, that's not what I'm asking about.
Translating into your funny terms ;), what I'm saying is:
of music which uses minim beats, how many examples can you find
which are notated with a time signature that says they use dotted
minim beats?
That's very, very different.
> > I'm agnostic on the example of the 6/4 measure in the middle of a
> > 4/4 piece. I understand why it works to use 6/4 with the musicians
> > involved. It wouldn't work well with musicians with different
> > expectations.
>
> Using 3/2 *just because* it's a six-crotchet bar without dotted-minim
> beats is allowing the theory to dicate the practice. If there's an
> unambigous crotchet pulse, and the composer wants six pulses in a bar
> (I'm deliberatly avoiding the term 'beat'), what's wrong with 6/4? . . .
Nothing.
> . . . It
> does not dictate anything, only the context does that. 3/2, on the
> other hand, strongly suggests a change of the dominant pulse.
It depends on what the dominant pulse is.
Again, it's a flaw of our notation of time signatures. We are forced
to use 6/4 for both 2/H. and 6/Q and that's the source of the
confusion.
My argument is basically that there is no music whose structural
meter is 2/H. that should be notated with the 6/4 time signature.
That is, 6/4 can mean either 6/Q or 2/H. but 3/H is not a valid
meaning for it (it's very hard to write sentences with H. and Q. in
them and engineer them so that the sentence always ends after the H.
or Q.!).
I don't see that anyone at all has argued that music that is in 3/H
should be notated with the 2/H. time signature.
--
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
