Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 22:08:02 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Nov 2016, at 21:28, David Wright <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 10:37:36 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>>> The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
> 
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
> >>> these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
> >> 
> >> Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether 
> >> it might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato 
> >> counting on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring 
> >> naturally.
> > 
> > But the three notes I referred to weren't in 13/8 or 13/16 because the
> > last 3 of 3+3+3+3+1 (in 13/8 time) was a made into a duplet.
> 
> It was in response to your comment on 13/8 above.

Oh, OK. Well, I'm not familiar with music in these folk-dancing
traditions, and don't particularly find it easy to pick up on
the patterns involved. My own experience of dancing is mainly
in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.

> 
> In the Leventikos 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, the 3s have duplets metric accents. 
> But it is hard to express that via meter. When notation, oen just sums it up. 
> Bartok used (4+2+3)/8, that is
>   4+2+3
>     8
> but on the Balkans one would just write 9/8 or 9/16. The beaming can indicate 
> metric subaccents, but LilyPond cannot do that automatically, so I just skip 
> it,
> 
> >>> My example wasn't.
> >> 
> >> Then one add another level on the musical line. One example how this 
> >> occurs metrically is the Leventikos in 12.
> >> 
> > 
> > I don't know what "another level on the musical line" means.
> 
> One performer keeps the meter, and the others follow.
> 
> > What I was pointing out was that we have 13/8 consisting of three
> > dotted crochets followed by a duplet (two in the time of a dotted
> > crochet) followed by a quaver. The relationship of these notes is
> > 6 6 6 3 3 2 and I think most people would struggle with getting
> > that last note exactly the correct length.
> 
> In irregular meters, the opposite happens: one looses the feeling for exact 
> proportions. So one has to unlearn the idea of exact beats. If you want exact 
> beats, then you need a sequencer track.

If you say so.

> I am not sure exactly what meter you want, but if the proportions are 
> 3+3+3+3+1, then it will likely feel like a common 9 = 2+2+2+3 with a slight 
> time bend shortening the last beat a bit, which is normally done.

I don't want any meter. All I wanted to do was answer the question
posed by the OP, but using conventional notation (which, it appears,
is sufficient) rather than the rather unconventional approach IMO
posted by Joram.

> The tune Eleno Mome is often played in 7/8, but exists written as 13/16, 13 = 
> 4+4+2+3, where the 3 has typical 2+1 patterns. In live performances, there 
> might be something between 7/8 and 13/16. But exists written as 12/16, 12 = 
> 3+4+2+3, and a performance plays it as 3+2+2+2+3.
> 
> > Of course, if you adopt a pace where you can form that pattern
> > by grouping 26 rapid claps or whatever, then it can get simpler,
> > but I was talking in the context of straightforward note values
> > as sung by, say, a classical singer.
> 
> On Balkans, they use 3s and 2s, counting on the fingers, for example 11 = 
> 2+2+3+2+2. This way, smaller differences than be performed.
> 
> But you might try using flute articulation t-k and t-k-t patterns.
> 
> >>>> This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on 
> >>>> the 3s - se my other post in this thread.
> >>> 
> >>> OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
> >>> durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
> >>> So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
> >>> that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.
> >> 
> >> Yes, indeed. In the Leventikos, the quadruplet pattern occurs 
> >> consistently. When performing, there are slower 1/16th contrasted with 
> >> faster ones. Some performers have triplets on the 2s, and quintuplets 
> >> occur in Balkan music as well. So it can be more complex.
> >> 
> >>> I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
> >>> 3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
> >>> time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
> >>> The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
> >>> 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.
> >> 
> >> A problem with this meter is that the 1/3 at the end is fairly short, so 
> >> it may be distorted by metric time bends: there is a tendency in Balkan 
> >> music to shorten the measure at the end.
> > 
> > Hey, that's my point. You call it "metric time bends" and that's fine
> > in the context of your musical examples
> 
> Then it sound as a regular 9/8 or 9/16.
> 
> >> So the question is how to bring out the triplet nature. Otherwise 
> >> replacing the 1/3 with 1/4 or 1/2 might do well, from the practical point 
> >> of view. The meter 9 = 2+2+2+3 is very common, so at faster tempo, your 
> >> meter may sound like this one. Some examples:
> >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-2HVFc4k_k
> >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ycWoNozLY
> > 
> > I think you're on a different journey. I'm not trying to "bring out
> > the triplet nature" in anything. Perhaps you were misled by my second
> > sentence,
> > 
> > "Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note."
> > 
> > The "triplet" in that sentence refers back to the OP's
> > 
> > "the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note".
> > 
> > "One triplet eighth note" defines a duration of time (which the OP
> > appeared to get wrong in any case). One note cannot form a triplet.
> > 
> > Writing four dotted crochets followed by a quaver, in isolation,
> > has nothing tripletty about it. It's four steady beats and a kick.
> > We only use that notation normally when we intend to subdivide it
> > in a tripletty manner, usually crochet-quaver pairs (or add that
> > in another part). That's what makes it tripletty.
> 
> So what are your intended metric accents? If the 1/3 at the end is 
> subordinate to the i/4, then your meter will sound just like a 9/8 with a 
> slight time bend, unless lsowed down to a zeibekiko.

*I* don't have any. But the OP had 4/4 plus this odd short note, so I
assumed that they want four beats and a "kick" as I have called it.
That's why four dotted crochets and a quaver match the OP's request
IMO.

*You* brought up the subject of dividing those dotted crochets,
I believe, in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00081.html

> >>> At the bottom are the versions with undivided notes, with
> >>> the 1/12 notes represented in the only way I can think of.
> >>> 
> >>> One interesting thing that popped out of my 3/8 notation is
> >>> that the odd quaver at the end of each bar can be linked to
> >>> the three quavers in the next bar. The upshot is that the
> >>> overall rhythm is a repeated (4-slow 4-fast 3-slow 4-fast).
> >> 
> >> Syncopations are common in Balkan music, also on the ornamental level.
> >> 
> >>> The same rhythm is contained in the 4/4+1/12 notation, but
> >>> is it easy to spot? You could make it obvious by writing
> >>>  4:2⅔
> >>> ┌———————┐ over it, and leave people to ponder whether its
> >>> speed is the same as the triplet's. Lets' see, 2⅔ is 8/3
> >>> so 4:(8/3) is 4*3:8 is 12:8 is 3:2. Success.
> >>> 
> >>> Having that 1/8 quaver sitting next to the other three makes
> >>> the rhythm quite friendly. If the first beat of the bar is
> >>> an undivided dotted crochet, that last quaver is much
> >>> harder to time correctly. Of course, we have no idea what
> >>> the OP wanted to set to their "4/4+1/3" signature, how it
> >>> would be divided etc.
> >> 
> >> The choice may depend on whether the the 1/4s are divided into triplets or 
> >> 2s and 4s.
> > 
> > There may be no choice to be made. Perhaps the OP wants four beats and
> > a kick, and nothing more.
> 
> It is ambiguous, as it stands.

Yes, in the sense that the OP appeared to make a mistake in specifying
the relative duration of the last note in the bar.

No, in the sense that the OP didn't ask for any subdivisions so none
were given in my response, see
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00074.html

> >> You might write out both versions, for convenience of the musician. So 
> >> might have a supporting percussion line with triplets on the 1/4s in the 
> >> meter 4/4 + 1/3, which the other musicians can follow. Then the 4s might 
> >> be divided into 2s and 4s.
> > 
> > Well you might. But I would be reluctant to put a score in front of
> > somebody with a quaver having 1:⅔ written over it, or with time
> > signatures that didn't have powers-of-2 denominators. I guess there
> > are people here for whom this is normality. My question to them is why
> > don't they start inventing a glyph hierarchy for note division by
> > three. We could eliminate a lot of tuplets and dots!
> 
> As it is, beaming can indicate subaccent patterns. SO any such notation would 
> have to think of that.

(No comment.)

Cheers,
David.