wasn't it Andrew who was complaining about verbifying nouns (the
term itself is an example) sometime last year?
Christopher
Certainly not! That's one of the glories of the language.
I tend to be an extreme latitudinarian in linguistic matters. I'll even
grit my teeth and concede nucular.
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:55 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
And hemiolated sounds like something you'd need Preparation H for!
;)
Well I do confess it is a googlewhackblat (the first I ever personally
encountered)--but you had no trouble
On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, I'm concerned about the idea that you would assume that Lully
wrote anything at all in 3/4. I don't know of any French music from
that period in which modern 3/4 occurs in the original sources, nor
any time signature with a 6 in it.
Has anyone mentioned the term sesquialtera?
_New Grove_ again, article Hemiola:
from Gk. hemiolios: 'the whole and a half'; Lat. sesquialtera). In early music theory, the ratio 3:2. In terms of musical pitch, when the string of the monochord was divided in this ratio the two lengths sounded the
On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:55 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I have the score in front of me. He writes it as 6/8 (3/4) with the
header Tempo di Huapango (fast). The beaming of the hemiolated (3/4)
measures is inconsistent.
Ack!!! Andrew! How can someone who is so particular about terminology
get
On 1 Jul 2005 at 11:19, Andrew Stiller wrote:
[I wrote:]
I *do* see a problem with calling something a hemiola that is
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what a hemiola actually is.
Of two examples given in the relevant _New Grove_ article, the second
(from Lully) is of the type you call reverse
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built on
it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
Really? I only know the term as referring to the chord built on the 4th
of the scale.
It's
On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:07 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:
Christopher Smith / 2005/06/29 / 06:00 PM wrote:
Just to thoroughly discredit my own argument, though, here are two
exceptions. There are two pieces of common repertoire which are
ordinarily written in 6/8 (divided 3+3) with swing SIXTEENTHS
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/30 / 01:38 AM wrote:
and neither you nor George raised any objections.
Are you saying we have met before?!!
Oh, this is embarrassing.
How come you never mentioned it?!
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com
Chuck Israels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
(the I want to live in America effect
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one
combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was pretty
clear.
I've actually
Well, if you think of it as a subdominant *function* it's not so very
wrong. In a similar way vii serves a dominant function.
Ken
At 09:54 PM 6/29/2005, you wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built on
I am obviously stupid, but can someone explain to me what this means,
and in what way it is an example for 6/4 being 3x2/4? The poem seems
to be in 2x3/4.
Johannes
Sorry, I misread your post to mean the opposite of what it actually
said.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
Yes, I realise that, just as there are many more dominants available
than the one built on the 5th degree (speaking of both dominant
function and dominant quality).
Some of these concepts have grown so much that they deserve their own
terms. Like the bVII dominant7 chord resolving to I in
(the I want to live in America effect
The actual line is I like to be in America.
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was pretty clear. It seems cluttered to change time signatures every measure for
Some of my colleagues have replaced this term with Predominant to
be more clear.
Christopher
Is that the predominant opinion?
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On Jun 30, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Some of my colleagues have replaced this term with Predominant to
be more clear.
Christopher
Is that the predominant opinion?
Ooh, TWO puns aimed my way in less than twelve hours! I love it!
Christopher (hoping to convert the
Andrew Stiller wrote:
The beaming of the hemiolated (3/4)
measures is inconsistent.
Well, that's consistent with the utter mess of the hand-scrawled parts
that I've played off!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built
on it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
Really? I only know the term as referring to the chord built on the
4th of the scale.
So you're telling me that
Andrew Stiller wrote:
The beaming of the hemiolated (3/4)
measures is inconsistent.
Just conducted WSS last fall. It is 6/8 (3/4).
Yes, it is irregular in spots but it plays itself. Only a few spots where it
isn't one then the other, and those are easily pointed out in rehearsal. I
conducted
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built
on it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
If this is true, then do you call the 7th a sub-tonic ?
Call me aa A-retentive tradionalist, but I believe that by
On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built
on it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
If this is true, then do you call the 7th a sub-tonic ?
On 30 Jun 2005 at 0:14, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 11:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 9:28 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
The work in question is most definitely in two groups of 3 beats
each (although it often hemiolas into 3/2 temporarily).
That's
On 30 Jun 2005 at 9:20, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built
on it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
Really?
Hello folks.
Has anyone mentioned the term sesquialtera? One source i have says
IIn Hispanic Music, it may refer to the mixture of duple and triple
time within groups of six quavers (eighth notes).
Hal Owen
--
Harold Owen
2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my
On 30 Jun 2005 at 11:35, Andrew Stiller wrote:
(the I want to live in America effect
The actual line is I like to be in America.
That was my memory misfire.
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one
combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was
On 30 Jun 2005 at 13:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord
built on it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
If this is true, then do you call the 7th a sub-tonic ?
In
That's only if you are using 6/4 as an equivalent to 3/2. The
traditional use of 6/4, however, is that of two 3/4 halfbars. In such a
use of 6/4 I would not consider it correct to use half rests. The
correct rests for the quarternote on the last beat would be:
dotted half rest, quarter rest,
City Band.
Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587
Private Mob 0417-042171
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Johannes Gebauer
Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 5:49 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4?
That's only if you
keith helgesen schrieb:
I would query your assertion that 6/4 traditionally is 2 X 3/4.
From my experience 6/4 is generally 3 X 2/4.
Is it? I doubt that for most music written before 1900, after that I
guess things are a little more complex.
I'd be interested to know about any piece in
Even after 1900 - Bartok makes a very clear pedagogical point of it toward
the end of Mikrokosmos I - contrasting two pieces in 3/2 and 6/4. The 3/2
is 3 x 2/4 and 6/4 is clearly 2 x 3/4. The relationship of 6/4 to 6/8 as a
compound duple meter is to my mind beyond much argument. 3/2 is
At 12:43 PM +0100 6/29/05, Owain Sutton wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
keith helgesen schrieb:
I would query your assertion that 6/4 traditionally is 2 X 3/4.
From my experience 6/4 is generally 3 X 2/4.
Is it? I doubt that for most music written before 1900, after that
I guess things
At 07:16 AM 6/29/2005, you wrote:
There are mensural pieces, perhaps as early as the 13th century but
certainly by the 14th, for which the original notation and the relations
between tempus and prolatio have to be resolved when transcribing into
modern notation. By the 14th century it was
On 29 Jun 2005 at 10:16, John Howell wrote:
At 12:43 PM +0100 6/29/05, Owain Sutton wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
keith helgesen schrieb:
I would query your assertion that 6/4 traditionally is 2 X 3/4.
From my experience 6/4 is generally 3 X 2/4.
Is it? I doubt that for most music
On 29 Jun 2005 at 13:12, Phil Daley wrote:
At 6/29/2005 12:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 3:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I didn't realize that the 2x3/4 division was more common than the
3x2/4 division, but of course you're right about the correct rests
in that
At 12:58 PM 06/29/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
Why would anyone use a 6 for 3 beats?
Because if you have a section in quarter notes that's going back and
forth between 4, 5, and 6 beats to the bar (for example), intermixing
4/4, 5/4, and then 3/2 can look confusing to the player. 6/4 makes it
On Jun 29, 2005, at 12:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 3:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I didn't realize that the 2x3/4 division was more common than the
3x2/4 division, but of course you're right about the correct rests in
that case.
6/4 has always been a 2-beat measure,
At 12:58 PM 6/29/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Why would anyone use a 6 for 3 beats?
All of this discussion presumes that the barlines are not visual
placeholders. The evolution of music in the past half-century has included
substantial visual barring, where notes are grouped for their ease of
On 29 Jun 2005 at 13:20, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 12:58 PM 06/29/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
Why would anyone use a 6 for 3 beats?
Because if you have a section in quarter notes that's going back and
forth between 4, 5, and 6 beats to the bar (for example), intermixing
4/4, 5/4, and then
On 29 Jun 2005 at 13:29, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 12:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 3:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I didn't realize that the 2x3/4 division was more common than the
3x2/4 division, but of course you're right about the correct rests
On 29 Jun 2005, at 1:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
You seem to think there's nothing inherently illogical about using
6/4 for a 3 subdivision. I think it goes against the whole
organization of the way time signatures work, using something that
clearly means one thing (2 beats) to mean something
I am obviously stupid, but can someone explain to me what this means,
and in what way it is an example for 6/4 being 3x2/4? The poem seems to
be in 2x3/4.
Johannes
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
'd be interested to know about any piece in 6/4 before 1850 which is
clearly 3x2/4, do you know one?
On 29 Jun 2005 at 11:48, John Howell wrote:
I think that what he provided (or someone in his circle did) an
actual notational means to indicate duple subdividion called
coloration, literally done by switching to red ink for the duple
passages, and after white notation caught on in the 15th
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Johannes Gebauer
Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 7:45 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4?
keith helgesen schrieb:
I would query your assertion that 6/4 traditionally is 2 X 3/4.
From my experience 6/4 is generally
On 29 Jun 2005 at 15:37, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 3:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Question: do you think a piece in 3 half-note beats should correctly
be notated in 6/4?
I would distinguish between should and could. Such a piece might
be better written in 3/2, or it
On 29 Jun 2005 at 15:45, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 3:32 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Would you use 6/8 for measures with 3 quarter-note beats?
Yes, of course. This happens all the time in Afro-Cuban and South
American music. Usually, it's shifting . . .
That is, it's
: Thursday, 30 June 2005 3:15 AM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4?
On 29 Jun 2005 at 13:12, Phil Daley wrote:
At 6/29/2005 12:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 3:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I didn't realize that the 2x3/4 division was more common than
On 29 Jun 2005 at 21:46, d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
Maybe I have insufficient imagination.
I haven't followed the whole thread, but, speaking of tradition, let's
not forget that of the French courante, where 6/4 (and 3/2) is used
for _alternating_ patterns of 2x3/4 and 3x2/4
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:04 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 15:37, Darcy James Argue wrote:
- but
there are many excellent reasons why someone would choose 6/4 over 3/2
for a piece in 3 half-note beats.
None of the musical training or musical experience I've had anywhere
in my
On 29 Jun 2005 at 16:36, Andrew Stiller wrote:
'd be interested to know about any piece in 6/4 before 1850 which is
clearly 3x2/4, do you know one?
Johannes
--
William Billings: Modern Music. The text of the 6/4 section
addresses the issue directly, and makes it clear that
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 21:46, d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
Maybe I have insufficient imagination.
I haven't followed the whole thread, but, speaking of tradition, let's
not forget that of the French courante, where 6/4 (and 3/2) is used
for _alternating_
On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:00, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 3:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If the meter is 6/4 and the subdivision is 3x2/4, then I'd say that
the meter is wrong, not uncommon.
OK, you lost my support there. I see LOTS of divisions of all kinds of
things
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I could cite a couple of examples of jazz 6/4 without a clear 3+3
subdivision, but I wouldn't think they would mean much except to
specialists familiar with the repertoire. All About Rosie by George
Russell is one
Actually, in the
On 30 Jun 2005 at 8:12, keith helgesen wrote:
And because it makes no sense to you it is therefore wrong?- or
proponents thereof are borderline incompetent?
The message you made this reply to did not include that term in it.
I have seen no one offering as an example any music that meets the
On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:15, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:04 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 15:37, Darcy James Argue wrote:
- but
there are many excellent reasons why someone would choose 6/4 over
3/2 for a piece in 3 half-note beats.
None of the musical
David W. Fenton wrote:
Are you really talking about notation there? What I mean by that is
that isn't the musical content coming before the writing down?
Should the musical content not always be the priority?!
___
Finale mailing list
On 29 Jun 2005 at 23:23, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 21:46, d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
Maybe I have insufficient imagination.
I haven't followed the whole thread, but, speaking of tradition,
let's not forget that of the French courante,
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:09 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I infer from what you've wrote above about 6/8 and 3/4 that you agree
that a piece that never switches to 2 groups of 3 8ths should not be
notated as 6/8. I therefore think that it should be logical that you
would agree that 6/4 would likewise
On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:40, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I could cite a couple of examples of jazz 6/4 without a clear 3+3
subdivision, but I wouldn't think they would mean much except to
specialists familiar with the repertoire. All About
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If 4/4 is not 2x2/4 (and it's not), then I don't think it's write to
say that the passage you're talking about is 3x2/4. If it *is*, then
3/2 (which is 3/H) is completely appropriate. That you say it is not
proves that it's not in 3x2/4, but
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, time signatures suck, too. 3/H or 2/H. make much more sense.
Then you could also have 6/Q being its own separate meter, rather
than in our system where 6/Q and 2/H. are indistinguishable without
some kind of understanding of a
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I could cite a couple of examples of jazz 6/4 without a clear 3+3
subdivision, but I wouldn't think they would mean much except to
specialists familiar with the repertoire. All About
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't think 6 quarter notes is at all the same thing as 3x2/4 or
2x3/4, any more than 4/4 is indistinguishable from two measures of
2/4.
I agree, but sometimes convenience...
If you use 6/4 to mean 6/Q, then it makes perfect sense to
On 29 Jun 2005 at 23:49, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Are you really talking about notation there? What I mean by that is
that isn't the musical content coming before the writing down?
Should the musical content not always be the priority?!
Yes, and the notation should
David W. Fenton wrote:
But this is because I recognize only two valid interpretations for
6/4, 2/H. and 6/Q -- and my reason for eliminating 3/H is because I
can't see a reason for using 6/4 to indicate what 3/2 clearly
indicates without the confusion of the compound time signature.
But
On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:55, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:09 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I infer from what you've wrote above about 6/8 and 3/4 that you
agree that a piece that never switches to 2 groups of 3 8ths should
not be notated as 6/8. I therefore think that it should
On 29 Jun 2005 at 19:21, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If 4/4 is not 2x2/4 (and it's not), then I don't think it's write to
say that the passage you're talking about is 3x2/4. If it *is*, then
3/2 (which is 3/H) is completely appropriate.
On 29 Jun 2005 at 19:35, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, time signatures suck, too. 3/H or 2/H. make much more sense.
Then you could also have 6/Q being its own separate meter, rather
than in our system where 6/Q and 2/H. are
On 30 Jun 2005 at 1:21, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
But this is because I recognize only two valid interpretations for
6/4, 2/H. and 6/Q -- and my reason for eliminating 3/H is because I
can't see a reason for using 6/4 to indicate what 3/2 clearly
indicates without the
On 29 Jun 2005, at 8:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it depends on CONTEXT, which I've said all along.
No, you did not.
What you originally wrote was:
6/4 has always been a 2-beat measure, just like 6/8.
If that were not the case, there'd be no reason for either meter to
exist at all,
On Jun 29, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I remember now seeing that in the score you lent me! And the 4/4 bars
were in cut time, so it sort of made sense, in a swing-era kind of way
I just saw your post, Darcy, about it being in 3/2 AND 4/4, which I
agree, is odd, and no doubt
My, we've really explored many sides of the 6/4 meter issue since I
posted my question late last night!
I think we've settled that: in general, 6/4 should divide in the middle,
3/2 should divide in threes, just as 6/8 and 3/4 do. There are
exceptions, but the general rule should hold. The
Raymond Horton wrote:
My, we've really explored many sides of the 6/4 meter issue since I
posted my question late last night!
I think we've settled that: in general, 6/4 should divide in the middle,
3/2 should divide in threes, just as 6/8 and 3/4 do. There are
exceptions, but the general
The work in question is most definitely in two groups of 3 beats
each (although it often hemiolas into 3/2 temporarily).
I just wasn't certain, in 6/4, whether five beats rest should
generally be a dotted half plus two quarters or a dotted half plus
a half. The latter is easy to read,
On 29 Jun 2005 at 20:56, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 8:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it depends on CONTEXT, which I've said all along.
No, you did not.
What you originally wrote was:
6/4 has always been a 2-beat measure, just like 6/8.
If that were not the
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:(the "I want to live in America" effect I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was pretty clear. It seems cluttered to change time signatures every measure for
On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:57, Chuck Israels wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
(the I want to live in America effect
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one
combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was pretty
clear. It
Chuck Israels wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
(the I want to live in America effect
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one
combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was pretty
clear. It seems cluttered to change
At 09:28 PM 06/29/2005, Raymond Horton wrote:
I just wasn't certain, in 6/4, whether five beats rest should generally
be a dotted half plus two quarters or a dotted half plus a half. The
latter is easy to read, but I suspect that Johannes is indeed on target
with his asstertion that the former
Even more simple than I suggested and all the better.
Chuck
On Jun 29, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Ken Durling wrote:
IIRC, it's written in 6/8 with straight quarters on me-ri-ca
Ken
At 06:57 PM 6/29/2005, you wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
(the I want to live in
At 10:13 PM 06/29/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 at 18:57, Chuck Israels wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
(the I want to live in America effect
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one
combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:57 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
(the I want to live in America effect
I don't remember how Bernstein wrote this, but I'd write it with one combined time signature 6/8 and 3/4 and think that that was pretty clear. It seems
On 29 Jun 2005, at 9:28 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
And, so far, my question hasn't been answered with any degree of
consensus by the experts on this fine list during this gentle mayhem
that has ensued from the original question.
Actually, way back at the beginning, Johannes answered your
On 29 Jun 2005 at 23:15, Darcy James Argue wrote:
[nothing I'm quoting here, but I can't find the original post, but
wanted to respond to something Raymond said]
On 29 Jun 2005, at 9:28 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
The work in question is most definitely in two groups of 3 beats
each
You are correct that the question was answered, once, but I was hoping
for a consensus. Thanks for the summary.
RBH
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 9:28 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
And, so far, my question hasn't been answered with any degree of
consensus by the experts on
On Jun 29, 2005, at 11:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 9:28 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
The work in question is most definitely in two groups of 3 beats
each (although it often hemiolas into 3/2 temporarily).
That's not the right meaning of hemiola. A hemiola is:
W W
It is quite proper to use a 3/2 bar in the middle of a 4/4 work, using a
quarter note pulse, with the intention of keeping the quarter note pulse
but the 3/2 divided 2+2+2. This is done quite correctly and frequently,
not constantly.
But that does not keep it from being very confusing to the
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/29 / 07:21 PM wrote:
The reason the switch between 4/4 and 3/2 in the published version of
All About Rosie is confusing because while the 4/4 sections are
notated to reflect what the drums are doing, the 3/2 sections are
notated to reflect what the bass is doing.
Christopher Smith / 2005/06/29 / 06:00 PM wrote: Just to thoroughly discredit my own argument, though, here are two exceptions. There are two pieces of common repertoire which are ordinarily written in 6/8 (divided 3+3) with swing SIXTEENTHS - "All Blues" by Miles Davis, and "Better Get Hit in
On Jun 30, 2005, at 12:57 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
If you say Miles, I can't keep my mouse shut :-)
Nice pun! Very impressive, and not in your mother tongue!
The melody, to me, clearly dictates 6/8, while he does solo in 6/4
groove later, the head/theme pattern is 6/8 with dotted Q
On 30 Jun 2005, at 12:57 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/29 / 07:21 PM wrote:
The reason the switch between 4/4 and 3/2 in the published version of
All About Rosie is confusing because while the 4/4 sections are
notated to reflect what the drums are doing, the 3/2 sections
On 30 Jun 2005, at 1:38 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The shift is subtle and deceptive -- I'm sure intentionally so. You
are so familiar with the chart after all these years, it may be hard
for you to put yourself in the position of hearing it for the first
time. Keep in mind when the first
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built on
it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant
Really? I only know the term as referring to the chord built on the
4th of the scale.
So you're telling me that a
I know that it is generally felt that one should not, in the best of
company, use half rests in 3/4 time. How about 6/4?
Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist, occasional arranger and composer
Louisville Orchestra
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On 29 Jun 2005, at 12:58 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:
I know that it is generally felt that one should not, in the best of
company, use half rests in 3/4 time. How about 6/4?
Hi Raymond,
Half rests are used in 6/4. It would look ridiculous to have, for
example, five quarter rests in a row,
94 matches
Mail list logo
