christopher, in all the cases i have seen using what are now commonly given the unfortunate name of "irrational" time signatures (*), the "whole" value implied is the whole note. 1/6 is indeed one-sixth of a whole note (quarter note triplet, as you wrote).
Thank you. I am glad I have not been blowin' smoke all these years.
re metric modulation: is it really easier to calculate a metric modulation on the fly (or does it take less time in rehearsal to calculate), than playing x number of triplet values following straight quarters (for example)? it seems to me that any professional musician working today (it is assumed that is who will be reading the part) should be able to "feel" and play triplet or quintuplet values without any calculation, as easily as s/he can play a change from straight quarters to straight eighths, or to swing. it is not really such a radical change of perspective (neither tactile nor intellectual) as is often implied.
Triplets to quarters are certainly very easy to modulate, or not, if they were notated as tuplets. I WOULD modulate if I needed to stay in the new rhythm for a while, so I suppose the answer would depend on the context.
I remember having this discussion on this list about key signatures in jazz a few months ago - whether to use them all the time, and when to modulate versus keeping the same key sig and using accidentals. Your question is very much to the point; if it is easier (read: more clear) to modulate the time sig, then do so. If it is more clear NOT to modulate time sigs, then don't. I like the way you cut through the fog to the point.
Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
