Darcy James Argue wrote:
I have given up on notating anything in compound meter. It is much too
difficult for players to sight-read for anything of even moderate rhythmic
complexity in such meters. Notating 6/8 figures in 2/4 (w/triplets), or 12/8
figures 4/4 (w/triplets), has the *huge* benefit of visually showing where all
downbeats lie. Otherwise, everyone ends up having to pencil in the beat map
underneath the music.
In duple meter, for sight-reading purposes, rhythms are binary -- they fall either *on
the beat* or *off the beat.* (Players will subdivide "the beat" as necessary,
as long the subdivisions are binary.) In triple meter, there are *three* possible
rhythmic subdivisions per beat, which makes sight-reading much more difficult. But
reading complex/syncopated compound rhythms becomes easier if all three beat positions
are bounded under a triplet bracket, so that the downbeats, at least, are instantly clear.
As with so much of musical notation, the ease of reading the
music depends largely on the musicians' familiarity with the
notational devices.
I believe Darcy writes mostly in the jazz idiom, so even
though the rhythms may be binary, where that second half of
the beat is placed is anything but clear to people not used
to reading and playing in the jazz idiom and all of its
sub-genres of uptempo, ballad, medium swing, jazz waltz,
etc. And since most jazz music isn't written/played in a
true compound meter it's easy to understand why those who
play it most of the time would have difficulty interpreting
that.
But for more classically oriented musicians compound meter
is common enough that they usually have no problem with it,
reading or playing.
As a matter of fact, if the subdivision of the beat is in
thirds throughout an entire work, it's so much easier to
read it in compound meter than to see a page loaded with
triplet brackets when there are no beats which have duple
subdivisions.
I really have no problem with anybody deciding either to use
or to abandon compound meter notation, but I just wanted to
speak out in support of compound meter, lest anybody who is
fairly new to thinking about notational issues read Darcy's
message and think "Wow, that makes so much sense, I'll do
that too!"
What Darcy says makes great sense in his situation, but
would not be very sensible for notating Offenbach's
"Barcarolle" or Adams's "O Holy Night" or Sousa's
"Washington Post" any of the other compound meter
compositions commonly performed.
--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
