Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 4 Nov 2016, at 03:21, David Wright <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Just drop a note if you want some examples. :-)

> 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.

I have encountered Mairi's Wedding, 8x40 reel:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairi%27s_Wedding

Another type of irregularity occurs in "Adiós pueblo de Ayacucho" from Peru, 
which is notated in alternating 2/8 ad 4/8. The meters of the measures are
  ||: 2 | 4 | 4 | 2  |  2 | 4 | 4 | 4 :||

>> In the Leventikos 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, the 3s have duplets metric accents.

>>> 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.

The Leventikos in 12 typically has very heavy time bends. If you do not follow 
that when playing along, you get out of sync a bit.

>> 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.

One can probably find a conventional notation approximation within the time 
bends that occur naturally. If one want a more exact representation, syncing 
tracks would be needed, I think. Another reason for writing a complex time 
signature is to make sure performers don't try to play it exactly.

>> 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.

Sorry for that.

> 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.

And we do not know the intended tempo. If it is reasonably high, it will 
probably sound like a 9/8, 9 = 2+2+2+3, with a typical time bend shortening of 
the 3.

> *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

Hindemith, "Elementary Training", shows such examples how tuplets can be used 
to simplify notation. But that is the only point of it, from the musical point 
of view.

>>> 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.

I have assumed that your interpretation is correct, equivalent to 13 = 
3+3+3+3+1.

> 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

But there is no tempo given, and how strong is the accent of the 1 relative 
that of the 3 before it?