[Peter Younghusband:]
>... 2/4 is simple duple, 6/8 is compound duple etc..............
>can anybody describe 3/8 please?
Depending on the tempo, the feel of the music, and other imponderables, I
would think it could be either compound single or simple triple. In this I
agree broadly with comments by Brad Beyenhof, Rob Deemer, and Daniel Dorff.
I understand that, according to traditional theory, one beat in a bar is
not recognized as existing, so 3/8 would not be compound single metre according
to this rule. However, I think it is clear that 3/8 can in practice be most
easily perceived as compound single metre in fast tempi, and that it can be felt
most easily as simple triple in slower tempi.
Although traditional theory admits only one interpretation, I think both
can be justified logically. For 3/8 to be simple triple can be jusified by
analogy with 3/2, 3/4, 3/16. But 3/8 as compound single can also be justified
by analogy with 6/8, 9/8, 12/8.
In both cases, it fits into a clear and consistent series of time
signatures: 3/2, 3/4, 3/8, 3/16; and 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8, respectively.
3/4 also has the same dual character, and is often effectively compound
single in a fast Beethoven or Chopin Scherzo. (Although very often the case
there is that the metre is felt as compound quadruple, with each bar forming one
beat, and that the bar-sized metrical unit here is really 4 bars. Such Scherzi
might more logically be notated as 12/4, but tradition seems to be to write such
movements in 3/4.)
I suppose there would be no reason why even 3/2 could not be a compound
single metre if it were fast enough; but in practice 3/2 doesn't seem ever to be
used that fast. Indeed, it can often be so slow that it can be heard as 6
beats.
For 3/2 these should be in 3 groups of 2, not 2 groups of 3, for which one
should properly use 6/4. But many composers who would never get confused
between 3/4 and 6/8 do appear to get confused between 3/2 and 6/4, and I have
very often seen these metres used incorrectly.
As far as simple single metre goes, the Scherzo of Borodin's Symphony no. 2
in B minor is in 1/1. It is very fast, and the semibreve (whole-note) is indeed
what you feel to be the beat. What could this be other than simple single
metre? - which I suppose would not be recognized as even existing by most
textbooks.
Just a few more miscellaneous points:
[Burt Fenner:]
>Then what is the meter of the third movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony?
I'm not a conductor, so I don't know how a conductor would beat. But I
suppose this could be felt to be either way. I would expect it to be fast
enough, though, to be physically awkward to beat 3 per bar.
But I can hear it as either one beat or three beats in the bar. So that
makes it either compound single or simple triple.
[Brad Beyenhof:]
>Gardner Read (the only text I found with 3/8 listed) lists it as Simple
>Triple, for he has no mention of the existence of Single meters.
The lack of single metres in Gardner Read (a book I don't have, but perhaps
should get) doesn't surprise me, and it is what I understand to be the
orthodoxy.
What *does* surprise me, though, is that you didn't find more texts
mentioning 3/8. Pieces in 3/8 are quite common, and I don't in any way regard
this metre as unorthodox or way-out.
[Christopher B. J. Smith, referring to 3/8 metre:]
>Simple triple?
>Compound triple being like 9/8, I imagine.
Yes, but if you consider the simple triple of 3/8, I would think of the
compound triple that corresponds to this as being 9/16 rather than 9/8. It
makes note values correspond more closely from one metre to the other than any
other pairing of simple and compound triple would. It also allows the same kind
of note to be used as the primary beat in both metres, even if it is dotted in
one and undotted in the other.
This can be seen in, for example, Scriabin's Piano Sonata no. 10, many
passages of which are in 3/8, and others in 9/16; and in fact there are passages
in which both metres appear simultaneously in different staves, and the pairing
of these metres looks quite natural and logical, whereas combining 3/8 with 9/8
or 9/anything-else would be awkward and illogical, with note-values that look
more disparate than they do with this combination of metres.
In a similar way 3/2 and 9/4 correspond to each other, and so do 3/4 and
9/8.
[Daniel Dorff:]
>Not to be a wise guy, but I call it 3/8. Why disguise it with jargon? It
>doesn't help students conceive it differently.
To some extent I agree with this sentiment, although not entirely. I think
jargon is perfectly valid if it helps us draw fine distinctions; and, in this
case, as indicated above, I do think there can be a difference of the way you
interpret 3/8.
But if jargon merely obscures issues, or doesn't recognize differences that
can be seen or felt, I would then not take too much notice of it. And if I were
composing something in 3/8 and its rhythm were such that I couldn't quite decide
whether it was compound single or simple triple metre, I would not let that
deter me, and would just write it how I wanted to.
[Rob Deemer:]
>Not wanting to start up a huge discussion of metrical opinions on the list,...
I would not dare raise anything on this list that I *didn't* want to become
a huge discussion. :-)
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
