9 over 7

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Michaud:

To stiff-arm the "math" of rhythm altogether is to close oneself off to an extremely effective method of learning different rhythmic shapes. It is also self-negating. Should one no longer refer to "8th notes" as such because he had to employ mathematical language to do so?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess that's like the metric system of referring to note values - over here in the UK we call them really bad and confusing names - semibreves, minims, crotchets, quavers, semiquavers, demisemiquavers, hemidemisemiquavers, semihemidemisemiquavers, etc etc etc....

I try and get away from that purely because it's confusing, and plus we still call time signatures four-four or nineteen-sixteen, so it just makes sence to me that the note values should relate to the time signatures purely for clarity. But i only really use that system for talking on forums and about drumming. For classical piano and other lessons, i use the english system - i can't imagine talking about chopin and using mathematical values, damn, it's just stupid...