vanDongen-Gilcher wrote: >> rhythmn is always based on one integral periodic 'pulse'. if >> time is not divisible by this atom, there is no musical time. > >Nancarow, Ives, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Schaeffer, Henry etc. etc in >the classical field
can you point at a specific work? those scores are costly and hard to get. those works of boulez and stockhausen i remember seeing the scores of don't specify a meter at all, and where they do it was nothing out of the ordinary afair. you're not talking about absence of notation, right? >Taylor, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Coltrane, Mengelberg, Broetzman, Zorn, >Ayler etc etc in jazz/impro if you mean what i think you do: these guys don't prescribe a meter in the first place. give a pointer where they do and its not integral, please. >lots of ambient stuff that I don't know the names of. >lots of acapella vocal music from various cultures. likewise, but i may be wrong. you don't need a meter to cover time that is not organized in cycles, right? >There can be easily multiple time-frames going happening in a single piece >of music that have non-lineair relationships. we do agree on this afaik. >A computer can also be used to make sounds that a player cannot make. >A sequencer/daw will also be used for non-musical ordering of sounds in >time. It might be handy to use an extended beat/measure structure for >setting event frames for dialog editing for a radio play. you're perfectly right in all these cases; but to describe what is happening then, a musical meter isn't adequate anyway, is it? >Anyway my point is that the A/B concept of measure if only really relevant >if your dealing with western _notation_, and then together with the entire >score. the A/B concept may not be perfect, but it is able to express rhythmns from all over the world in integral time units, which is of great help to musicians and musicians programming computers. tim
