[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:18:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> writes:
> On 11/13/21, 4:05 PM, "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Kieren MacMillan <kieren@kierenmacmillan.info> writes:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> >> It doesn't answer the question.
> >
> > Did my explicit answer in the other email (i.e., “one
> > quintuplet-sixteenth-note”) not suffice?
>
> No. You propose replacing (cons 3 4) as a time signature designation
> with (cons 3 (ly:make-duration 2)). You have failed to give any
> indication of what you want to see (cons 8 20) replaced with.
>
> What if the time signature description were (cons 3 '(2 0 1/1)) or
> '((rep 3) (dur_param (2 0 1/1))?
>
> LilyPond does not have something like a 1/20th duration. Regarding
> durations, what occurs inside of \tuplet 5/4 and \tuplet 10/8 is
> completely indistinguishable: "tupletism" is not a part of durations.
>
> So I repeat: what duration in LilyPond do you want to use to represent
> the denominator in 8/20 ? 1/20th here is neither a 5-tuplet nor a
> 10-tuplet: it represents a fraction of a whole note, not a particular of
> several possible note values.
>
> It will likely end up as (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) but that has no
> unique printed representation different from (ly:make-duration 4), and
> (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) and (ly:make-duration 4 0 8/10) are
> absolutely indistinguishable.
>
> The alist I proposed above would be able to distinguish between 4/5
> and 8/10.
No it wouldn't. Scheme does not distinguish 4/5 and 8/10 . And neither
does the composer using a time signature of 8/20 whether this suits your
theories about what time signatures "really" are or not. 8/20 conveys
more information than a proper fraction (which would be 2/5) but less
than 8 times a particular note duration expressed as a specific kind of
tuplet. It's 8 times 1/20 without detailing how that 1/20 is
constituted.
> I don't know if it's a good idea, but it is an idea.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, (continued)
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Carl Sorensen, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Carl Sorensen, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/13
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, Kieren MacMillan, 2021/11/14
- Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator, David Kastrup, 2021/11/14