16 Dec
2002
16 Dec
'02
10:42 p.m.
David Olofson wrote:
i've heard l.shankar, the phenomenal player of a double-necked
electric violin (he's not bad on the traditional instrument as well)
count indian talas in 3.5 beats and 9.5 beats. he counts:
1--2--3-1--2--3-1--2--3-1 ...
and
1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9-1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8-9-1 ...
perhaps any western musician would count
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1 ...
but he'd find it harder to collaborate with the people that actually
play this kind of music as part of their own culture. i've also heard
and watched both zakir hussain and v. vikaryam count talas, and
believe me, they don't do what you propose a musician would do.
On Monday 16 December 2002 23.08, Tim Goetze
wrote:
thanks for asking.
1) it is simply not the way counting time as a musician works.
if your measure said 3.5 / 2, you'd count 7 quarters. Paul Davis wrote:
Can you expand on that? >i'd be happy to hear a good example
proving this wrong. but
>take note that i don't accept 1/2, 1/3 and relatives as
>qualifying because they can better be (and usually are)
>expressed using integer numbers.
[long reasonings elided]
alright, have your way then if you need all the complication
for so little to gain, and if your scheme gets the votes. 2) the first time somebody uses 1/3 and 1/4 at the same
time,
accumulating beat algorithms don't give the same result
reliably where they should.
hmm. i'm not sure of this. i'm not entirely clear what you mean by
these nomenclatures. do you mean "1 beat per measure, beat-note-value
= a third note" and "1 beat per measure, beat-note-value = a quarter
note"? or something else.
--p