On 29 Jun 2005, at 8:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it depends on CONTEXT, which I've said all along.
No, you did not.
What you originally wrote was:
6/4 has always been a 2-beat measure, just like 6/8.
If that were not the case, there'd be no reason for either meter to
exist at all, as 6/8 divided into 3 beats is just 3/4, and 6/4
divided likewise, just 3/2.
Why would anyone use a 6 for 3 beats?
And then:
Ignorance of convention?
Failure to understand the way modern time signatures work?
You seem to think there's nothing inherently illogical about using
6/4 for a 3 subdivision. I think it goes against the whole
organization of the way time signatures work, using something that
clearly means one thing (2 beats) to mean something else for which
there's another, simpler symbol (3/2).
To me, it smells of borderline incompetence, a lack of comprehension
of the way the notational system actually works.
There is no mention of musical context, only absolute pronouncements.
I'm glad you do in fact believe that context matters, and that there
are exceptional cases that are not merely the products of ignorance or
borderline incompetence, but there was absolutely no way anyone could
be reasonably expected to infer that from your initial posts.
You've since clarified (repeatedly, I know) and I think we are now more
or less in agreement on this.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
