Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 9:32 AM -0700 7/14/04, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:13:22 -0400, Christopher BJ Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:24 PM -0600 7/13/04, shirling & neueweise wrote: >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.
I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but I've come up with a question: in, for example, 3/6 meter, do you still have to mark the notes as three triplet quarters? Or does the 6 on the bottom imply that all quarters have quarter-triplet value?
Yes, I would do so. I probably wouldn't write 3/6, though, as this situation is better covered by 2/4, 4/8, or 1/2, depending on the context. It is quite possible to have one instrument playing REAL quarters while another instrument playes the tuplet, so it is best to keep everything clean and clear.
In a measure of 2/6 (an incomplete triplet) I would write 2 quarters with a bracketted 3. I know it's weird to see a triplet with only 2 notes inside the bracket, but it actually feels OK to perform it.
I would regard this as an imperfect solution - a triplet bracket without three beats inside simply doesn't add up.
As for the question about 3/6 - yes, the 6 indicates the proportional change of the duration of each quarter note.
In response to suggestions elsewhere in the thread that it's possible to use "5x = 4y" above barlines instead of x/10 or x/12 metres - that method becomes unwieldly if there are metre changes in most or even every bar.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
