Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <kieren@kierenmacmillan.info> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> How is that uniquely identified?  Why couldn't it be subscripted with 10 
>> instead of 5?
>
> I suppose it could. It could also be subscripted with a π or a √2. I
> can’t stop people from doing what they want to do.
>
> Simultaneously true is the fact that the musical duration “one
> quintuplet-sixteenth” has one and only one visual representation,
> regardless of what Lilypond thinks or is told to do.

Again you are evading the stated problem.  The question was about the
representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one
quintuplet-sixteenth".  8/20 does not specify more than the basic
subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the
number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material fits
a bar.  It does not identify how that material may be structured or
expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what
meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have,
leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation
by involving musical durations for the denominator.

-- 
David Kastrup