On 29 Jun 2005 at 19:21, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 29 Jun 2005, at 6:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > If 4/4 is not 2x2/4 (and it's not), then I don't think it's write to > > say that the passage you're talking about is 3x2/4. If it *is*, then > > 3/2 (which is 3/H) is completely appropriate. That you say it is not > > proves that it's not in 3x2/4, but 6x1/4. > > I think the problem here is that you are used to music where only one > time feel is happening at any one time.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Much of the music my consort plays is highly polymetric. I posted about this earlier in some detail in response to Dennis. I posted URLs to some bad MP3s of a couple of pieces that include it quite clearly. In one of those pieces, it's notated in 3/2, with a cantus firmus that's always in 3/2. But in some passages, the top parts are in 3/4, and in 3/4 measures that always begin on a quarter note other than 1 or 4, while the bottom part remains in 3/2. In another passage, all the parts are in 3/2, but with each part shifted by one beat from the other parts. In other music that my group is accustomed to playing, the meter of each individual line shifts in and out of 2/2 and 3/4 (with the quarter note constant), and not infrequentely into 3/8 (with the 8th constant), and the parts do this independently of each other. Any meter you choose for one part is going to get it wrong for the other parts, which seldom make the shifts at the same time. > In the "All About Rosie" passage under discussion, the drums are > playing 4/4 swing time and the bass is playing two half notes to the > bar. You can think of it is simultaneous 4/4 and 2/2 if you like. > But by convention, that rhythmic feel is still written as 4/4. Well, 4/4 is not just 4 quarter notes. It has the important secondary accent on the half measure. So, I see no metrical mixing here, just part of what 4/4 is all about in the first place. > (Although we would say the bass was playing with a "2 feel". In fact, > even when *both* the drums and bass are playing with a 2 feel for the > entire piece, we still notate that in 4/4.) I see no contradictions and no need for explanation. It's almost an axiomatic characteristic of 4/4. > Going back to "All About Roise" -- when the (written) 3/2 measures > interrupt the 4/4 feel, . . . Again, we're already outside the realm of the music I am talking about, because there's a CHANGE of time signature (to reflect a change of the length of the measure). > . . . the drums continue in 6/4 swing time (which > basically involves six quarter notes on the ride cymbal, with some > "skip beats" (offbeat eighth notes) inserted at will, and hihat stomps > on beats, 2, 4, and 6. And in these (written) 3/2 measures, the bass > plays three half notes per bar. So you can think of that as > simultaneous 6/4 and 3/2. That sounds like all 3/2 to me (or 6/Q), if nobody is grouping 3 quarters together. > The reason the switch between 4/4 and 3/2 in the published version of > "All About Rosie" is confusing because while the 4/4 sections are > notated to reflect what the drums are doing, the 3/2 sections are > notated to reflect what the bass is doing. But there is not a > corresponding shift in the relative importance of those instruments. > When the 3/2 measures hit, it's supposed to be a subtle prolongation > of the measure, not a big dramatic in-your-face metrical shift. > > Since this is a piece from 1957, I doubt the editor had any > understanding of these jazz-specific issues. He probably just looked > at it and said "You can't have 6/4 divided in three -- it has to be > 3/2," without considering any of the reasons why 6/4 might be more > appropriate. Well, I would think that 6/Q is superior to 6/4, precisely because 6/4 implies the strong possibility of 2/H. which is not present in the passage at all. Given a choice between only 3/2 and 6/4, I'd go with 6/4, too, if I agreed with your description of what's actually going on. But if I had 6/Q available to use, *that's* definitely what I'd use. None of these considerations have *anything at all* to do with the assertion I've been making, which is all about how to notate music that is uniformly in measures with a pulse of 3 half notes. Notating that music as 6/4 just confuses things, because neither of the interpretations of 6/4 that are distinct from 3/2 is valid for it. Can I make this more clear? These are the three interpretations for 6/4: 2/H. 6/Q 3/H The last interpretation is identical to 3/2, and music that is in that meter should be notated in 3/2, never in 6/4 (unless there's some kind of shifting going on that makes it useful to do so; but I've already eliminated music that is playing around with shifting subdivision patterns from the discussion). As a general rule, what justification could you come up with for using 6/4 as the time signature for music with a 3/H meter? -- 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
