Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 02:44:56 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 04.11.2016 um 02:39 schrieb Urs Liska:
> >
> > Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
> >> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> >> to parse it.
> > Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> > to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

But even those who can parse it can also be confused, just not utterly¹.
For example, I would say that the top line² is confusing and the
bottom one isn't, in the example I posted earlier. But somebody liked it.

> To clarify, this wasn't meant as a joke. On the one hand those musicians
> who will be able to perform this kind of music won't have an issue
> reading it.

Well, they might have had an issue on the first occasion that they met
some instance of unconventional notation. They work through it, then
it becomes second nature. Call it learning, training...

> On the other hand there *are* many people arguing that music
> notation is way too complex to learn but who claim to express themselves
> musically anyway.

That's too vague for me to understand the point you're trying to make there.

¹ Disclaimer: I have no idea what was being discussed on facebook.
² which I wasn't happy with until I changed "3" to "1:⅔".

Cheers,
David.

met.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document