Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[Carl Sorensen]

On 11/14/21, 9:33 AM, "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

    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,

Do disagree with the statement that "The 20 on the bottom of the time signature 
indicates a duration of 1/20 of a whole note"?  If you disagree with this, what 
do you think the 20  on the bottom of the time signature means?

Carl

    
    -- 
    David Kastrup