David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings
accomplishes in that regard.
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived
as a 9:8 ratio from Q=54.
You seem to not understand the meaning of the word "obvious."
Wouldn't it be more clear to just state the ratio, rather than using
a metronome marking that is completely impossible to get from a
metronome, or to perform, or to perceive?
It's a proportional relationship between the parts of the piece, so
why should it not be represented as a proportion? Why obscure that
fact by converting the proportional relationship to something else?
Because of what I've said elsewhere, that some of these markings are
approached via accel/rit instructions. How would you show the
proportional change, given this added element?
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
