On 19 Jul 2005 at 8:59, Owain Sutton wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 18 Jul 2005 at 15:58, shirling & neueweise wrote: > > > >>/12 meters > > > > My objection to these meters is that they tell you what the > > subdivision is, and give you no help whatsoever with identifying the > > beat. > > > > I would much prefer something like: > > > > 3+2+3+2+2 > > --------- > > 8 > > > > to anything over /12. > > Identifying the beat in /12 is NO DIFFERENT to in /8. At all. It's > just the speed of the pulse is altered. I still do not understand what > is difficult about it - have you actually tried looking at music with > these metres, or are you talking about it on an abstract level?
No, I don't have access to any such music. Sounds to me like it doesn't need *any* time signature if something over /12 gives you all the information you need. Sorry, but this is an unresolvable dispute. My concept of music simply doesn't allow something as illiterate as /12 when there are plenty of musically literate alternatives for conveying the same information. -- 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
