Hi Peter,
I really like this quirky short piece.
When I sit back and listen to it, the piece makes more sense than when I follow the score. I tried to figure out why. I think it is because the irregular meters you chose (eg, 7:8) don't seem to match the beats that I hear. Testing that theory, I tried moving the barlines around and changing/simplifying the meter to match what I heard. The result is the attached .not file. I'd be interested in knowing whether what you hear and had in mind is matches your original meters or whether it matches my reconstructed meters or perhaps something else.
It may be that because you entered the notes manually, without changing accents (note velocities), I'm not hearing the beats you hear. The only irregular meter I heard was the 5:8 at the end, which, by the way, is a fun way to wind up the short piece before a traditional cadence.
Well, the other irregular meter I heard was right at the beginning of the piece. There is a very interesting ambiguity at the beginning of the piece: The FH, Trombone and Tuba want to claim a regular meter on the first note of the piece; whereas the Trumpets want to claim a regular meter after what would be an 8th note upbeat. Given what comes in the measures that follow, I voted for the Trumpets' victory in establishing the meter, so that the lower brass take on a syncopated off-beat rhythm in the context of the regular meter, which is what establishes the rhythmic quirkiness of the piece right from the beginning.
In my opinion, a "prime number" numerator in a meter is appropriate when the beat pattern clearly mixes groups of 2's and 3's, as in your 3+2 = 5:8 meter at the end of the piece. However, just because a piece is highly rhythmic and syncopated doesn't meter that the meter is irregular. When there is syncopation, I think it helps the performer to _see_ the regular meter that provides the context of the syncopation, rather than for the syncopation to dictate irregular meters on a per-measure basis. The latter is just too difficult for a performer to read or for a conductor to conduct, again, in my opinion.
P.S. We've established in previous posts that we both enjoy the visual esthetics of a score. Perhaps you find the irregular meters to be more visually pleasing. I actually find the regular meters more visually pleasing if the impact on the beaming of notes is that the starts of beams land on the beats I think I'm hearing.
Your thoughts?
Cheers
-- Mark
Cheers
-- Mark
<center><table border=1><tr><td>http://www.notation.com/discus/icons/attachment_icon.gif
Fanfare-Re-Metered-by-Mark.not (http://www.notation.com/discus/messages/35939/Fanfare-Re-Metered-by-Mark-27770.not) (41.1 k)</td></tr></table></center>