7:6

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

7:6	You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>General >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

Stu

Posts: 2540
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

7:6

hey folks, what does this mean in notation??? 7:6

I'm familiar with 3 above notes for triplets and 6 for sextuplets etc but have just come across this with two numbers and was a little curious. Why is it not just written as 7?? also seen 10:8

Here's the particular group of notes.

_____7:6_____
--------------------
--------------------------------
---------2------2--------------
------3----3-------------------
----0--------0-----------------
--------------------------------
-3--------------3--------------

Hope that crude diagram makes sense.

Thanks

stu

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 18 2008 23:26:34

Conrad

Posts: 533
Joined: Jul. 16 2003
From: Toronto, ON, Canada

RE: 7:6 (in reply to Stu)

I don't understand the tab, and I don't know for sure, but it probably means 7 notes played in the space of 6 or a "septuplet". 10:8 would mean 10 in the space of 8, or perhaps two groups of 5:4, which is a "quintuplet".

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 19 2008 0:02:32

Ricardo

Posts: 14845
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: 7:6 (in reply to Conrad)

quote:

it probably means 7 notes played in the space of 6

Yep

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 19 2008 5:28:03

duende

Posts: 3053
Joined: Dec. 15 2003
From: Sweden

RE: 7:6 (in reply to Stu)

If ya got trouble fitting it all in use this phrase

Ku-ken mell-an Patt-ar-na
1---2---3-----4--5-----6--7--

_____________________________

This is hard stuff!
Don't give up...
And don't make it a race.
Enjoy the ray of sunshine that comes with every new step in knowledge.

RON

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 19 2008 7:26:40

Stu

Posts: 2540
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: 7:6 (in reply to duende)

Ok, cool, so that seems pretty obvious then, but why not just put 7?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 19 2008 8:51:15

Ricardo

Posts: 14845
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: 7:6 (in reply to Stu)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manzmann

Ok, cool, so that seems pretty obvious then, but why not just put 7?

They could have, if it is a solid deliberate and even 7. More likely the transcriber realized notes were being squeezed in, probably there were more notes before or after grouped in 6's, so really the phrase might have been rushed 6's that allowed an extra note in. I have seen that a lot in Rock guitar transcriptions...I call it note cramming. Odd tuplet groupings that occur very deliberate often have a special type of phrasing like 2+2+3 for example =7. Just an idea.

If the phrasing is mostly in 4's, you may see "7:4". But going back to the other idea of note cramming I remember seeing things like "13:12 +" Meaning the phrase started like 12's then they rushed. Or "11:12 -" meaning they dragged and didn't make an even 12 group in time. THese things are easier to hear in a slowed down recording with drummer behind. Flamenco guitar solo, you have more room to make a decision with a transcription. I think just "7" is probably OK.

Ricardo

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 19 2008 17:11:54