> On 4 Nov 2014, at 19:52, Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> wrote: > > Am 04.11.2014 um 15:18 schrieb Hans Aberg: >> >>> On 4 Nov 2014, at 10:49, Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: >>>> Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: >>>> >>>>> If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected >>>>> the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? >>>>> For example, >>>>> >>>>> 2 + 3 2 + 3 4 >>>>> ----- + C vs. ----- + - >>>>> 4 4 4 >>>> >>>> Undesirable in my book. >>>> >>> >>> I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, ... >> >> It could be interpreted as a compound meter 2+3 followed by one in 4, >> indicating that the metric accent on 4 should be stronger than the one on 3. >> This is different from 2+3+4, which means that it is unspecified, or >> possibly that they are about the same. > > Ok, but this is something I would indicate by a ">" on the first beat of the > 4/4 part and "simile" for the rest – or some explanation for the musician …
One can see it on the beaming, but in Balkan music, one may not bother with the details. So a rachenitsa 7/16, 7 = 2+2+3, typically have just that as time signature, and may be beamed as 4+3. One interesting alternative is to write 2+2+3 over the time signature. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel