Re: Compound time signature style

[Hans Aberg]

> On 4 Nov 2014, at 19:52, Marc Hohl <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Am 04.11.2014 um 15:18 schrieb Hans Aberg:
>> 
>>> On 4 Nov 2014, at 10:49, Marc Hohl <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>> Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected 
>>>>> the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? 
>>>>>  For example,
>>>>> 
>>>>>    2 + 3                2 + 3   4
>>>>>    ----- + C     vs.    ----- + -
>>>>>      4                    4     4
>>>> 
>>>> Undesirable in my book.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, ...
>> 
>> It could be interpreted as a compound meter 2+3 followed by one in 4, 
>> indicating that the metric accent on 4 should be stronger than the one on 3. 
>> This is different from 2+3+4, which means that it is unspecified, or 
>> possibly that they are about the same.
> 
> Ok, but this is something I would indicate by a ">" on the first beat of the 
> 4/4 part and "simile" for the rest – or some explanation for the musician …

One can see it on the beaming, but in Balkan music, one may not bother with the 
details. So a rachenitsa 7/16, 7 = 2+2+3, typically have just that as time 
signature, and may be beamed as 4+3. One interesting alternative is to write 
2+2+3 over the time signature.