[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compound time signature style
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: Compound time signature style |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:41:47 +0100 |
> On 7 Nov 2014, at 00:37, Dan Eble <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 08:46 , David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> I lean towards not consulting the style here. \compoundMeter to me
>> feels like it should just be numeric.
>>
>> Of course, to allow for full laziness, it might make sense to interpret
>>
>> \compoundMeter #'(4 . 4)
>>
>> properly as 4/4 then because one can then cheat one's way around writing
>>
>> \compoundMeter 4/4
>>
>> for a numeric time signature.
>
> My gut feeling is that formatting a compound meter should encompass
> formatting a simple meter, and I’ve been trying to understand where to draw
> the line.
>
> If both \compoundMeter #(2 3 8) and \compoundMeter 4/4 could be made to work,
> why bother keeping both \compoundMeter and \time? Why not just let \time do
> all the work?
It is normal to write a different time signature than the meter. For example,
\compoundMeter #(3 2 2 8) might have time signature \time 7/8.
I write for example
\time 11/16
\set beatStructure = #'(4 3 4)
It would nice to have \compoundMeter #((2 2) 3 (2 2) 16), indicating subbeaming
(2 2) for the 4s, while still writing \time 11/16 (typical for notating a
kopanitsa).
- Re: Compound time signature style, (continued)
- Re: Compound time signature style, Dan Eble, 2014/11/06
- Re: Compound time signature style, David Kastrup, 2014/11/07
- Re: Compound time signature style, Dan Eble, 2014/11/07
- Re: Compound time signature style, Hans Aberg, 2014/11/07
- Re: Compound time signature style, David Kastrup, 2014/11/07
- Re: Compound time signature style, Hans Aberg, 2014/11/07
- Re: Compound time signature style,
Hans Aberg <=