[David K:] > 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)
Ah, I think I now see where your confusion lies. The time signatures 8/20 and 9/8 *do* function identically: — the bottom number identifies the duration, *expressed as a fraction of a whole number*, that should be considered the functional division of the measure; — the top number identifies how many functional divisions are required to fill a complete measure. *By convention*, traditional classical music groups the 9 one-eighth-of-a-whole-note events into three groups of three each, leading people to say that the duration of a “beat” is equal (in that case) to three eighth notes. The time signature “9/8” does *not* (as you imply) actually convey *any* information about the number of “beats” — the *convention* does that. > It does not identify how that material may be structured or expressed Correct. That’s left up to beat-structure et al. — which is, I assume, why that portion of the time management code exists…? > in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what > meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have I suppose Carl and my surprise (revelation?) is that Lilypond has *never* handled time signatures correctly (where “correct” means “according to the accepted definition of 'time signature'”). Cheers, Kieren. ________________________________