On 29 Jun 2005 at 15:01, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 29 Jun 2005, at 2:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 29 Jun 2005 at 13:29, Christopher Smith wrote: > >> > >> The piece was in a medium 4/4, but at one point we needed an extra > >> two beats (two half notes turned into a half and a whole) so rather > >> than insert a measure of 2/4 and screw up everyone's bar numbers, I > >> made it a measure of 6/4. That made it very clear that the beat was > >> a quarter note, and there were six of them in that measure, rather > >> than whatever 3/2 would have implied (beat is a half note, with > >> three of them? More confusing for sight reading, IMHO, especially > >> if I beat it in 6, which I did.) > > > > Well, to me, the confusion comes either way. If I saw 6/4 in that > > context I'd think "two beats of dotted half," > > None of the players Chris and I write for would make that assumption > in playing our music.
To me, that's astonishing. It's the only logical interpretation I can think of, at least as a starting point. [] > > If you > > want to make sure that the 2/4 is not landed on like a downbeat, > > then 3/2 seems to me to work very well. > > It's more confusing in a sight-reading situation that 6/4, and it > implies an undesirable change in the rhythmic feel -- especially if > there's a rhythm section involved. If the drummer and bassist are > playing mostly 4/4, if they see a bar of 6/4, it means "keep doing > exactly what you're doing, but just insert two more beats before the > next downbeat," whereas 3/2 or 4+2/4 both imply a more dramatic shift > (in addition to being harder to read). Well, obviously, it all depends on expectations. I find the understanding of meter you describe to be incomprehensible, but I guess there are dialects of meter that I'm completely unfamiliar with. Given the basic illogicality of the whole system of indicating meter, I guess that shouldn't be surprising. > > I was responding to the idea that a piece that is really 3 half-note > > beats would be notated as 6/4, which makes no sense to me at all. > > There is no inherent or logical reason why 6/4 can't be 3x2/4, and in > contemporary writing it's frequently used that way (especially at > slower tempos). The beam and rest patterns will immediately make it > clear whether 3x2/4 or 2x3/4 is intended. I completely disagree on the "inherent" and "logical" parts. There is no logic at all to 6/4 as 3x2/4, because that's what 3/2 exists to indicate. Using 6/4 in that fashion is a completely unnecessary complication, one that is inherently ambiguous because of the fact that it has another more common meaning. Would you use 6/8 for measures with 3 quarter-note beats? If not, then I think that's inconsistent with the claim that 6/4 is appropriate for 3x2/4. Again, let me repeat: in contexts where there is a recurrent shifting between 3 and 2 beats, or other groupings of subdivisions or accent patterns, all bets are off. But if your music moves consistently in measures with 3 half-note beats in each notating it as 6/4 looks illiterate to me. I can't see what is accomplished by that that can't be accomplished more easily and more clearly by simply using 3/2 (which means 3x2/4). Maybe I have insufficient imagination. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
