> On 9 Dec 2016, at 7:22 AM, Steve Parker wrote: > > I think a composer should be able to do whatever they like. But it's not a > convention that is outliving its usefulness, it is rather a useful > distinction that is being contracted. > I can happily conduct 6 beats in 3/2 to keep the pulse the same and I've > never met anyone who would suddenly double the tempo of the crotchets just > because they've seen 3/2. > In terms of stress, subtleties matter. > S.w.w. 3/2 > S.w.S. 4/4+2/4 > S.S.w. 2/4+4/4 > Stress is, after all, a major reason for time signatures existing..
This is really interesting, as it seems to come down to a jazz vs classical thing — and I fully respect each, but acknowledge each has its own notational psychology. I think notational psychology is important, even crucial to know — things like when/where a cellist would see tenor or treble clef, or who prefers ledger lines (flutes and tubas) over 8va/8vb (pianists), and so on. The other break down in 3/2 vs 6/4 (in the purely classical world) might be amateur vs professional? Though even here, I’d follow the “rules” if there is time for this to be a teaching moment. It all comes down to who you are writing for and what will take the least explaining. If you don’t know the rules of a particular situation, you need to ask. I always try to avoid being the inventor, especially if there is a perfectly good “standard, expected” solution. In the professional classical world, top numbers 6, 9, 12 are ALWAYS compound meter, whether with lower number 2, 4, 8 or 16. Top numbers 2, 3, 4 are ALWAYS simple meter. Shifting back and forth between compound and simple usually has a (q=q) or (q=q.), sometimes with a confirming parenthetical metronome mark. If one or the other is consistent, you do this once and add “sempre.” The occasional 3/4 with a duple subdivision is always better shown as dotted quarter followed by eighth-tied-to-quarter (instead of two dotted quarters or a two-quarters duplet). Other top numbers (5 or 7) will show subdivisions with beaming — or will have (2+3) or some such thing if there is a conductor and if there is any lack of clarity. I hate wasting orchestral rehearsal time with the conductor going through the score saying where it is 2+3 and where it is 3+2 (been there…). If I give a part to a pro classical player with a simple meter when it should have been a compound meter (or vice versa), I will get a comment, will not be taken seriously, and ultimately, won’t get as good a performance. That’s how I learned this… Specifically for the situation that triggered this discussion: It sounds as if it is for non-pros. I’d recommend 4/4 and 2/4 or vice versa depending on the music. Could also be 3 bars of 2/4. Or if it is to 6/4 but sounding as three half-notes, it might be half, quarter-tied-to-quarter, half — though that would look fussy. Thanks all for a great discussion. I learned something, especially if I ever find myself writing for jazz players. David Froom _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: [email protected]
