[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Non-numeric time signatures
From: |
Dan Eble |
Subject: |
Re: Non-numeric time signatures |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:43:26 -0400 |
On Oct 25, 2014, at 17:59 , Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I think the double c and double cut c symbols are very much non-standard,
> unlike single cut c for 4/2, which I consider to be in use very widely. With
> this difference in frequency of use I don’t find your suggestion convincing.
My suggestion was not based on frequency of use (because I am ignorant of that)
but on my impression that it would be nicer to have a default that doesn’t use
the same symbol for different time signatures.
> default: (currently called #'C – perhaps rename to #'symbolic? That would be
> more descriptive)
> 4/4 -> c
> 2/2 -> cut c
> 4/2 -> (single) cut c
“Symbolic” is too generic. It could be applied to more than one style,
otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. :)
> How might an additional option for double c/cut c time signatures be called?
> Perhaps #'romantic or #'double or #’varsymbol?
I’m not qualified to judge whether the double-c style is romantic. If it is
not desirable to add the double-c time signatures to the default style, my
favorite name so far is #’CC.
Here is yet another suggestion for your alla breve pieces: What about adding a
#'single-C style (analogous to #’single-digit) which uses c or cut-c based only
on the numerator? Any 4/x would be printed as a single c and any 2/x would be
printed as a single cut c. You would therefore use \time 2/1. (I like this
suggestion a lot.)
Regards,
—
Dan