Re: Complex time signature

[Hans Aberg]

On 14 Jan 2011, at 21:57, Arle Lommel wrote:

> > Somebody in this list used the notation of writing just the number  
> > in the staff, and the '+' decomposition above it and the staff  
> > within parenthesis in smaller size. That seems me to be a good  
> > idea. The '+' is not needed if the decomposition can be seen from  
> > the beaming.
>
> Seems like a good way to approach it. I prefer the format I use in  
> some work I've, but primarily because I was writing pieces with  
> shifting polymetrics and preferred to make everything rather  
> obvious. But the idea you mention does seem appropriate where the  
> emphasis in the score is not on the rhythm and something more  
> discreet is desired.


I think this is better for those are used to it, and those that are  
may such a courtesy decomposition, which one can put in, if one thinks  
it is needed. It depends on the intended readership.

I have a Bulgarian example shifting irregularly between 9/16 and  
11/16. Then in the first measure both meters are given (actually with  
a '+' which I think should not be there), and for the rest of the  
measures the meter is given. But there are no '+' subdivisions given,  
though it is in a school, with the rhythm given by notes above.