![]() ![]() We have no other specific wording required to be memorized. A whole note here is one 4/4 measure in duration and everything else is derived using fractional division. I don't recall if it's a quarter, half or whole note I'm afraid - hence the complexity of your system compared to ours imho. I like our system and do feel it is more logical and future proof - but it doesn't sound as elegant as yours by any means, and certainly doesn't have the legacy of important history.ĭoes Quaver (I hope I'm spelling it correctly) mean anything in Europe other than being a note value? I don't recall if it's a quarter, half or whole note I'm afraid - hence one example of the complexity of your system compared to ours imho. I don't know of it's origins - my university music schooling was long ago now. ![]() So there's no counting on consistency across North America, nor Europe of course.ĭoes Quaver (I hope I'm spelling it correctly) mean anything in Europe other than being a note value? I mean to ask if it has a historical meaning other than for music. Of course I'm Canadian, not from the USA, so I also use the metric system as opposed to Imperial system which is still used by my USA neighbours. With a bit of jest -), I would counter your initial question by asking why Europeans hold onto a legacy that has long since been improved upon elsewhere. To north americans it is just very foreign and uncommon to hear, hence the initial reaction.īut semi demi etc prefixes are fine - they work - but am I correct in thinking that they, like spoken roman numerals, are an old method of representing verbally what has long since been updated to a much more efficient system for verbal use and which simplifies things by removing any need for memorization? It is simple math, basic stuff taught in the first couple of grades of school, and it translates perfectly to music theory - that is the benefit of the North American notation naming system imho. Of course as an adult music teacher the laughing part is long gone - it makes sense that a british naming system from long ago would SOUND like a british naming system from long ago. ![]() The name, quaver, just sounds so british. Like all north americans, when I first heard the european naming system I laughed and laughed and thought it was ridiculous. It just made perfect sense and was obvious - and you never have to try and remember (for example) what a note length name is called that, if repeated, will take 64 repetitions to fill one measure in 4/4 time. I didn't grow up in Europe so never thought twice about quarter/half/whole/sixteenth etc note naming. I'll reply back to the OP and ask why it seems illogical to you for north americans to speak mathematically fractional note durations as mathematical names. Preface - just talking conversationally - ya never know eh? -) No arguments here, just discussing things
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |