Agreed.
Chuck
On Mar 5, 2007, at 1:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
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
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
