On 5 Mar 2007 at 13:18, Chuck Israels wrote: > If there is doubt in anyone's mind that simple time signatures are > the norm in jazz, take a look at this piece, notated as closely as it > can be according to the way Bill Evans played it. The bass and drum > parts remain in 2/4 and a kind of 3/4 that crosses over a 4/4 feeling > in the bridge, Notating this according to the surface rhythms would > render the underlying bass and drum parts unintelligible.
You and Darcy seem to me to be arguing against a straw man. I would *never* suggest doing something like that in any other way because *that's exactly what the music involved is about* and thus, it's the simplest way to notate it. In the 6/4 vs. 3/2 argument, I was never saying to switch all parts between the two meters, but only those parts where the accent pattern switched. Now, as it turns out, I've been informed that jazz musicians (like the musicians *I* work with) will distinguish in their playing between a shift of accent and a shift of meter. I'm relieved to know it. But the point is: I was suggesting that where the music being notated actually had a metric shift, it made more sense to notate the metric shift. When the point of the musical content is a conflict between meters, it can be *much* easier for the musicans playing the conflicting meter to understand if you notated in the underlying meter, particularly when it's the kind of thing they are accustomed to feeling. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
