Hi Joseph, On 25/09/12 16:43, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 24/09/12 18:27, David Kastrup wrote: >> I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not >> talk about "12th notes" to other musicians. > > That's not entirely true. Contemporary composers (I think Ferneyhough > started it, others have continued it) have used time signatures like > x/10, x/6, etc. (which Lilypond already supports) where the base unit is > a quintuplet-eighth, a triplet-quarter, etc. > > (There are earlier examples of equivalent time signatures, e.g. in > Boulez, but they don't use the simple ratio -- Boulez writes things like > (4 + 2/3)/4 where Ferneyhough would have written 7/6.) > > Given such a musical context, it may make more sense to write, > > \time 4/10 > c'10 \times 2/3 { c'10 c' c' } c'20 c' > > than, > > \time 4/10 > \times 4/5 { c'8 \times 2/3 { c'8 c' c' } c'16 c' } You're getting into an edge-case here as far as more bread-and-butter typesetting is concerned. (Mike S's is maybe way out over the edge :-) .)
It's slightly off-topic from Graham's original proposition in the thread base-message, which was restricted to multiple-of-two/multiples-of three type duplets. This part of the thread has strayed beyond extra valid values for durations, and we've strayed into time-signatures-as-tuplets territory. However what you say here is good information and shouldn't get lost. Maybe you should repost this as a separate [talk] thread, with a more descriptive title? Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel