On 19 Jul 2005 at 11:07, shirling & neueweise wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > I would much prefer something like: > > david, coming from you, this kind of comment is like someone who > doesn't (want to) swim and hates being in water stating his > preference for fresh water lakes over saltwater seas. > > i would suggest that 3+2+3+2+2/12 is no different than your example, > as did owain, but there is conceptual blockage here, so i won't > bother.
No, it's not in any respect the same, as my alternative uses numbers that indicate actual note values, not the fraction of a whole note. You're right that this is an unresolvable dispute. You're approach screams "musically illiterate" to me, and leaves out the most important parts of music, rhythmic subdivision. There is no chance of my ever accepting /12 time signatures because they are fundamentally opposed to everything I know about music, meter and rhythm. It is a perfect example of everything I hate about certain schools of rhythmic thought, where rhythm is additive rather than metric. This approach to rhythm is the source of the extremely boring musical performance style that was widely practices in the mid- 20th century, to the point of becoming the norm. But that's an entirely different (though related) rant, so I won't go into it. -- 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
