Re: Compound time signature style

[David Kastrup]

Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 6 Nov 2014, at 21:42, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> You wanted \compoundMeter to be numeric, so I gave a possible
>>> algorithmic structure, reiterating discussions of the past on LilyPond
>>> lists. Once one has that, the time signature derives from that, the
>>> question you are asking about.
>> 
>> I guess I am just too far below the intelligence of your target audience
>> to understand even a single sentence of what you are saying.
>> 
>> It seems like we need an interpreter between mathematician and engineer.
>> Is there a physicist around?
>
> Carl Sorensen worked on this stuff back in 2012, and implemented
>   \set beatStructure = #'(4 3 4)
> Before one had to write something like
>   \set beatGrouping = #'(4 3 4)
>   #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * 11 16) 4 16)
>   #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * 11 16) 7 16)
>
> The new beatStructure is simpler, but it fails capturing the hierarchy of 
> subaccents.
>
> So this is the question one ends up with when trying to implement
> automated forms of compound meter time signatures.

The question was when to use 4/4 and when to use C in a time signature.
This is not related to the accent structure of the music as much as it
is to the century of its origin and the conventions used in its
respective music field.  Math does not provide answers to the particular
distinction this thread is about since the math behind C and 4/4 is
quite the same.

-- 
David Kastrup