> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David W. Fenton > Sent: 02 May 2007 22:43 > To: finale@shsu.edu > Subject: Re: [Finale] Conducting in 12/8 > > > On 2 May 2007 at 17:04, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > > > > On May 2, 2007, at 2:41 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't believe there is such a meter as 12 8ths to the > measure. We > > > have a meter called 12/8, but it's in 4, and notating in > that meter > > > implies certain things about the music. If those implications are > > > inappropriate for the music you're writing, then don't > use a meter > > > that implies that. > > > > That's a little too rigid. I can easily imagine a contemporary > > composer wishing to group, say, 3+2+3+4 eighth notes into a single > > measure. > > But that's not TWELVE BEATS -- it's 4 beats of varying duration. > > > If the context included constantly changing meters, all > with 8 on the > > bottom, then a measure of 12/8 would not, IMO, > automatically imply 4 > > dotted Q to any educated musician. > > Beaming can take care of a lot of this, yes. > > But what was described in the post was 12 undifferentiated beats. At > least, that was my understanding. > > And I say that such a thing does not exist in music played (or > perceived) by human beings. > > -- > David W. Fenton
Damn. I thought the bar before the Glorifcation de L'Eule in the Rite was thirteen, but I checked the score and it's in fact eleven. So maybe twelve is the absolute cut-off beyond which we can't conceive or perceive of non-emphasised beats. (Wait, I just did perceive them in my faulty memory, didn't I? ;) ) And maybe the What Would Igor Do rule is actually the one to follow - changing ever bar between 3/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8 could indeed preserve the fliudity of rhythm which seems to be required in this particular situation. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
