Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[Kieren MacMillan]

<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.

Cheers,
Kieren.