On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, time signatures suck, too. 3/H or 2/H. make much more sense.
Then you could also have 6/Q being its own separate meter, rather
than in our system where 6/Q and 2/H. are indistinguishable without
some kind of understanding of a tradition, or a note from the
composer.
Well, I think that perhaps 6/4 these days (or 6 anything, really)
doesn't have the imperative triple feel that it once had.
So you see that a bar of 3/2 showing up all of a sudden in a context
of medium jazz 4/4 is likely to cause a momentary confusion, more than
6/4 would. . . .
All along I've been talking not about a single measure occuring in
the middle of a different meter, or pieces in which there are
shifting subdivision patterns. I've been talking about relatively
straightforward music, where the subdivision is 3x2/4 throughout the
whole piece, with no significant exceptions. In that case, I just
don't see 6/4 as justified.
In your jazz repertory, I don't think you'd not notate that with the
half note at the beat -- you'd notate it as 3/4. You'd only choose
6/4 in a context where you didn't really want anything other than a
maintenance of the underlying quarter-note beat, and it's neither
3x2/4 nor 3x3/4, but 6x1/4 -- the ideal situation for the 6/Q time
signature.
There we go! Common ground at last!
. . . And I hope you see, too, that once one has started a /4
denominator, one must be very careful about what one does with the
denominator after that (to ensure clearest communication in a jazz
situation, that is.)
I'm not sure how much more explicit I could have been in syaing that
the whole context of my remarks has been limited to pieces that don't
change meter and that aren't exploiting a shift between the two
alternate subdivisions.
Oh, I got that. But what I was explaining was where there would be a
DUPLE (or even no fixed subdivision, like a lot of modern jazz)
subdivision, but three duples in a row. Or no discernable accent at
all. And all this where a quarter note is clearly the pulse. I just
don't think that EVERYONE looks at a 6/4 bar and mentally thinks "OK,
just like two bars of 3/4" the way they do with 6/8. ESPECIALLY in a
jazz context.
I could cite a couple of examples of jazz 6/4 without a clear 3+3
subdivision, but I wouldn't think they would mean much except to
specialists familiar with the repertoire. "All About Rosie" by George
Russell is one, "Down By The Riverside" arranged for Jimmy Smith by
Oliver Nelson is another one, "I Got What" which is I Got Rhythm
arranged by either Chuck Owen or Steve Owen (I forget which one) is a
third. Hihat on 2,4, and 6 in all these, more or less, which clearly
contraindicates a 3+3 subdivision.
Are you really talking about notation there? What I mean by that is
that isn't the musical content coming before the writing down? And in
that case, you have a couple of choices for what you choose for the
notated beat.
Hmm, I couldn't say that in any of the above three cases that the
content came before the notation. In Russell's case, maybe (I have no
certain knowledge) but he WAS a thoroughly trained musician when he
wrote it (and wrote it down, too!) so, I AM talking about notation. And
also, the choices, even in 1946 (or whenever that was written) for the
notation of swing rhythms were already delineated.
I think we all agree that our system of notating time signatures is
filled with potential confusion.
I wish Finale supported the notation of time signatures with the
denominator as a note.
Oh yeah, baby, I hear you.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
