I believe Andrew and David said 12/12 was not the answer but did not
say why.
But Creston has a valid point ( and a logical solution) so I feel duty
bound to ask for clear arguments as to why it is unsatisfactory.
Really, it is elegant and straight-forward albeit (most likely) doomed.
12/8 is in fact 12/12.
What could be simpler?
Jerry
Almost anything, I fear. If there were such a thing as a twelfth note,
intuition says it would be shorter than an 8th note; but the beat in
(compound) 12/8 is carried by the dotted quarter, and there are four
such beats in each measure, so the numerator ought to be 4 and if one
insists on making the denominator a number, it ought to be 3, not
twelve. If Creston were advocating for 12/8 = 4/3 I could see his
point, but as it is 12/12 merely compounds (as it were) the imprecision
of the notation because the absolute central requirement of any
reformed notation of compound meter must be that the top of the
signature reflect the actual number of beats in the bar.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
