The fact that the metric system has not yet been applied to time, with its antiquated duodecimal system of hours in a day and sexagesimal mintues and seconds etc. has been much discussed - and indeed actioned by tyrants like Robespierre with his 'Reign of Terror' communard colleagues and Lenin and Trotsky, though unsuccessfully so far.

But here's another area for the metricists to investigate and solve. According to an illuminating programme on Radio 4 this week, apparently octaves (whoops! - not very metric/decimal, are they?) are divided in most western music into twelve 'semitones', whilst most eastern music, e.g. Egyptian and Indian, divides its octaves into twenty-four 'quarter-tones'. The result is that eastern music sounds quite different. Apparently the typical sung muezzin call to prayer from the mosque is sung in quarter-tones.

And it's difficult apparently for singers brought up in either system to adapt to using the 'other' system.

There are apparently other divisions of octaves and 'tones' in other cultures.

Here, surely, is an antiquated anachronism ideal for metric reform. What is needed is to divide the octave into 10 units, maybe 'decatones' (or even 'Decca tones'). The outmoded 'octave' should clearly be replaced by a 'decave', or whatever.

I also seem to remember from my musical training that the beat was nearly always 2/4 or 4/4, sometimes 3/4 or 3/8, or even 5/6, but certainly anything but decimal. And when it came to the short notes, half a quaver was a 'semiquaver', and half of that a 'demisemiquaver', etc. Not at all metric, although I seem to remember using a 'metronome' - maybe that was an attempt to start using metres in music?

Frankly, the whole musical system cries out for metric reform; I would suggest that the 'decabeat' is introduced, with ten decabeats in a bar being the norm. The waltz would be a bit difficult in metric, but you could always invent a unit that was 3.3333 recurring 'decabeats' in length.

Once this is all agreed by the International Metrication Commission, the necessary legislation could be introduced worldwide, to ensure cross-cultural 'tonal comparability', in line with the price comparabilty sought by those who want everything in Britain (and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, Malta, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Roumania, Moldova, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russia, Cyprus (both bits) and Transylvania) priced in euros per kilos.

You would probably have to have a 'transition period' for musicians to adapt to the new system, culminating no doubt with something like the 2002 Weights and Measures Regulations banning (and criminalising) the mention of 'pounds' and ounces' in British shops after 31 December. The playing of duodecimal music outside the home could be banned simply by passing similar legislation.

Probably the United States and Britain, just as with the metric system for weights and measures, would be the last to switch to decimal music, held back by fuddy-duddy nostalgic traditionalists.

For those as yet unconvinced by the argument for decimalisation of both musical tones and beats, I conclude by rehearsing the case for change:

1. Decimal music is more logical, rational and scientific
2. The present system is confusing, with lots of different systems in use
3. The current system does not allow for meaningful 'musical tone and beat' comparisons to be made across national boundaries
4. Decimal music would be much easier for calculators, and all children are familiar with both calculators and the decimal system these days
5. Singers worldwide would only need to learn one simple musical system
6. It will assist the process of disconnecting people from their past and preparing them for the New World Order [Ed: Delete Point 6 immediately. You are only meant to list made-up justifications for compulsory metrication. The real reasons must *never* be stated. Please accept this reprimand as a final written warning as to your future conduct]

Very funny thing... Thanks Tony, I learned something new today !

Incidentally, I have a question for you.

Personally I think that the chances of Britain ever leaving the EU are rather small. Wouldn't you find it more useful to reconcile yourself to the situation and try to shape the EU a bit like you want it yourself ? I mean, why don't you try to lobby in one way or another to let, for example, jury trials become a part of the future European judicial system ?

I think that if you would approach the EU in a positive way you could achieve much more than you do now.

Conrad,

You are nothing if not up-to-date.

Over the past few days, I've noticed that at least three top New Labour politicians, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being two of them, have used a new phrase: "What we need now is a Pro-European Consensus". I will make two predictions:

(a) we shall hear this phrase again tomorrow when Gordon Brown explains why he doesn't think Labour can win a referendum on the euro yet (*) [Ed: You've got this wrong, you mean 'why the five tests haven't been met yet'], and

(b) that we shall hear a great deal more of this phrase in the weeks and months to come. It is a not-too-subtle message to folk like me: "Give up now, we're carrying on with the European project whether you like it or not".

It's hard to respond to your appeal briefly, but here goes...

I am only half-British anyway. Half my relatives are all over central Europe. Whether they live in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia or Austria, they all lack one thing - they do not live in a country with a long history of Parliamentary democracy and individual liberty.

I like travelling in Europe and have done so many times.

I accept that there is much that we can learn from Europe.

I accept the need to trade with Europe (which we always did and would do anyway, Common Market, E.U. or not).

I accept the need to co-operate with Europe at an international level e.g. on environmental issues.

Where I part company with the European project is that I do not accept that there should be 'ever-increasing union' to the point were the nation-state of the United Kingdom ceases to exist for all practical purposes and we lose the right to govern ourselves in the way that suits us. That is where the European project has always been headed, ever since the formation of the Iron and Steel Community in 1951. The proposed European Constitution will be another major step towards that end and I oppose it wholeheartedly.

As a matter of fact, I do campaign separately on the issse of maintaining jury trial, etc. The problem here is that in 1998 the E.U. published the outcome of discusssions on its future justice system, called 'Corpus Juris', which called explicity for the end of jury trial, 'habeas corpus', and the presumption of innocence. On that latter point, by the way, from Wednesday onwards in the United Kingdom, an employer faced with a claim of racial discrimination by an employee or a job applicant must prove on the balance of probabilities that he did not racially discriminate against the claimant. Up to now, as has always been the case in British law, the applicant had to prove his case (also on the balance of probabilities as is the case in civil law).

On page 41 of 'Corpus Juris', the E.U. calls for 'a better system of repression'. This was a translation from the French, admittedly, but it was a correct translation, not a mis-translation.

I could immediately list a dozen or more very tangible ways in which Britain would be significantly better off if she left the European Union.

I am prepeard to bet that you could not list even one unchallengeable way in which we would be worse off if we did so.

The European project can be likened to a train that is headed for an unwelcome destination, say a gulag in Siberia. That being the case, I do not want to get on it and discuss the upholstery or what it sells in its dining car.

If it is possible to get on a different train whose destination is European co-operation but not a Euro-state, I'd happily board that one

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The Matt cartoon in today's 'Sunday Telegraph' has a man leaning eagerly over a woman on a couch. The woman is saying to the man: "My policy is 'yes, but not yet'"

"Apparently the typical sung muezzin call to prayer from the mosque is sung in quarter-tones."

Surely this is sufficient evidence for you to convert to the metric system straight away?!

By the way, the British Isles are part of Europe.

re: "By the way, the British Isles are part of Europe".

ANSWER:

"The British Isles are a set of islands off the continent of Europe"

"Japan is an island off the coast of continental Asia"

"Madagascar is an island off the coast of continental Africa"

"We are associated with Europe, but not of Europe" - Sir Winston Churcill

....and the British Isles includes all of Ireland and the Isle of Man.

The Isle of man is NOT in the EU.

<<
and the British Isles includes all of Ireland and the Isle of Man
>>

British coins that were minted before 1801 (Union of Ireland with Britain) gave the monarch's title as

Britannia, Hibernia et Francia Rex (King of Britain, Ireland and France). The French claim was a historic one dating back to the Middle Ages, but the distinction between the British and the Irish titles shows that (at that time at any rate) the two were considerd tro be separate geographic identities.

-------

PS - my mate Paddy is looking for you. :-)

The British Isles is a geographical term and includes both Britain and Ireland, as well as the many smaller islands.

....and that was exactly my point.

And indeed mine. The British Isles are part of the continent of Europe in the same way as Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, etc.

Re the original post by Mr Bennett that started this thread.

The pro-metric side of this debate have no interest whatsoever in the application of the metric system to the world of music.

It is completely irrelevant and forms no part of our thinking.

Others may find him funny, I don't. That is not because of a lack of a sense of humour, it's just that I know that there is no real humorous intent on his part.

<<
The British Isles is a geographical term and includes both Britain and Ireland, as well as the many smaller islands
>>


All right, I stand corrected - but not before I checked - see http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/british_isles/.

That site does have one interesting comment
<<
The term British Islands has been used by the UK government since the Interpretation Act 1978 to collectively denote those lands within the British Isles which are inhabited by British citizens, i.e. the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is NOT synonymous with the term British Isles.
>>

<<
But here's another area for the metricists to investigate and solve. According to an illuminating programme on Radio 4 this week, apparently octaves (whoops! - not very metric/decimal, are they?) are divided in most western music into twelve 'semitones', whilst most eastern music, e.g. Egyptian and Indian, divides its octaves into twenty-four 'quarter-tones'. The result is that eastern music sounds quite different. Apparently the typical sung muezzin call to prayer from the mosque is sung in quarter-tones.
>>

You distinguish one octave from another by measuring its frequency. Frequency is usually measured in Hertz (or cycles per second) - a unit that is idetnical in both the foot-pound-second system of units and in SI. I fail therefore to see why this article was posted.

re: "You distinguish one octave from another by measuring its frequency. Frequency is usually measured in Hertz (or cycles per second) - a unit that is idetnical in both the foot-pound-second system of units and in SI. I fail therefore to see why this article was posted".

REPLY: Why cannot we have the much easier decimal system in music i.e 10 notes in an octave? The 12 semi-tones or even 24 quarter-tones in an octave are as antiquated as pounds, shilings and pence and pounds and ounces and it's about time we moved on, moved forward, modernised...

And there's no logical reason for retaining 24 hours in a day nor 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour. Calculators are ill-equipped to cope with these out-of-date units and the sooner all counting is done in 10s, the better

<<
And there's no logical reason for retaining 24 hours in a day nor 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour. Calculators are ill-equipped to cope with these out-of-date units and the sooner all counting is done in 10s, the better
>>

Yes there is. This method of counting time is the same the world over and the cost and effort required to change it would outweigh the benefits.

Future generations may do so if they have a compelling reason but that isn't foreseeable.

Once again a complete red herring.

You wrote "Others may find him funny, I don't. That is not because of a lack of a sense of humour, it's just that I know that there is no real humorous intent on his part."

In other words you lack a sense of humour.

Don't believe me? Re-read all you posts.