On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:55, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:09 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > I infer from what you've wrote above about 6/8 and 3/4 that you > > agree that a piece that never switches to 2 groups of 3 8ths should > > not be notated as 6/8. I therefore think that it should be logical > > that you would agree that 6/4 would likewise not be a valid time > > signature for a piece that never groups the quarter notes in two > > groups of 3. > > I think the crux of the matter is this: as Chris said in an earlier > post, the choice of rhythmic "denominator" has profound consequences > in jazz and popular music, and if what you want is 3x2/4, 3/2 is not > an acceptable substitute.
I thought Chris was arguing for 6/Q not 3/H as what he wanted 6/4 to mean. > I would agree that for a nonjazz, nonpop piece that literally *never* > groups the quarter notes into two groups of three, 3/2 is likely a > better choice. . . . Well, if the majority of measures don't group the quarters in 2 groups of three, it seems that 3/2 is better, don't you think? > . . . But in contemporary music, such pieces are extremely > rare. So, in pieces that involve a mix . . . I have never been talking about pieces that MIX. I've repeatedly made that COMPLETELY CLEAR IN EVERY SINGLE POST. > . . . 2x3/4 and 3x2/4, you have to > consider the context (how often do the shifts occur, which subdivision > predominates, etc) and intelligent people may well differ about which > time signature is most appropriate. I've only ever been talking about MUSIC WITH NOT SHIFTS OF SUBDIVISION AT ALL. I've said that. REPEATEDLY. -- 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
