[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Compound time signature style

From: Hans Aberg
Subject: Re: Compound time signature style
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:23:56 +0100

> On 7 Nov 2014, at 13:45, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>> On 7 Nov 2014, at 11:38, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> On 7 Nov 2014, at 10:08, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> The question was when to use 4/4 and when to use C in a time
>>>>> signature.  This is not related to the accent structure of the music
>>>>> as much as it is to the century of its origin and the conventions
>>>>> used in its respective music field.  Math does not provide answers to
>>>>> the particular distinction this thread is about since the math behind
>>>>> C and 4/4 is quite the same.
>>>> The “+” notation I think is quite recent, possibly invented by Béla
>>>> Bartók and Vinko Žganec for the description of Balkan meters. So the
>>>> use of anything else than numerals is a modernity.
>>> We are talking about the use of C for 4/4.  I doubt many people consider
>>> that a modernity.
>> In the compound time signatures “+” notation, that would be.
> I quote what the current discussion is about (cf
> <URL:>):
>    One more case: \compoundMeter #’(n d).  The current implementation
>    prints this as a fraction (n/d), but I plan to change it to honor the
>    style unless somebody objects.

From what I can see in some books, one normally writes 4/4, but if one so 
likes, one may write C instead. Particularly popular music may refer the 
latter, since this meter is very common.

> There is no "+" involved in that topic at all.  You quote this and my
> reply to it in
> <URL:>
> before adding a complex treatise not at all related to that particular
> problem.

I believe that the original intent of \compundMeter was to eventually capture 
what I described.

> It takes considerable work going through those mathematical
> elaborations, and if one finds at the end that it is not even relevant
> to the question, that's mostly a wasted effort, likely affecting the
> willingness of the reader to read through further similar postings.
> The end result then is that everybody's effort, including your own, is
> wasted.  Making sure that a reply applies to the question before
> investing a lot of work saves everyone disappointment.

Now you are intent of taking it in another direction.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]