Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <kieren@kierenmacmillan.info> writes:

> <sigh>
>
>> 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.
>
> Unless you have a concrete suggestion that you yourself would find
> satisfactory, I guess it’s fortunate for everyone that I’ve been
> browbeaten into abandoning my pursuit of this feature.

There is a difference between adding a feature and obliterating existing
semantics without replacement.  When the expression of the feature
additionally not only lacks the ability to express previously valid
semantics but also lacks the ability to distinguish between cases it is
supposed to newly be able to express, the design needs fixing rather
than a vigorous defense.

Of course pointing that out makes me the bad guy standing in the way of
progress.

-- 
David Kastrup