[James O'Briant:]
>>Or writing measures of 3/8, 3/8,
>>1/4 (to imply accents at the start of each measure) when a simple 4/4
>>measure with three accents would be far easier to read.
[Mark D. Lew:]
>Better yet, convey this with the beaming, either in 4/4 or 8/8.
I wasn't quite sure I understood this immediately; but, on further thought,
I assume it's referring to a rhumba-type rhythm.
I've never seen such a bar notated as three short bars of 3/8, 3/8, and
2/8. But I think I have seen a single time signature with 3+3+2 on the top and
8 underneath.
I wouldn't do this myself, probably, and would be satisfied with 4/4, plus
the 3, 3, 2 beaming. Often such rhythms have implicit in them a feel of four
even crotchet beats underneath the irregular grouping of quavers, so I think you
could even call 4/4 correct.
But I assume it wouldn't be correct, strictly speaking, if you had a
genuine Bartók style of irregular groups of notes that was not simple
syncopation, but a genuine irregular metre. In this case I would probably use
the 3+3+2 style of numerator.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
P.S.
I've started a reply to that mammoth and interesting message of David
Fenton's; but I just must call it a day for now: I've probably been spending too
much time posting now, but can't seem to resist an interesting discussion.
I don't know if I'll give a response to everything there; but I've made a
good start anyway.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
