On Tuesday 17 December 2002 03.11, Tim Goetze wrote: > David Olofson wrote: > >On Monday 16 December 2002 23.08, Tim Goetze wrote: > >> Paul Davis wrote: > >> >>i'd be happy to hear a good example proving this wrong. but > >> >>take note that i don't accept 1/2, 1/3 and relatives as > >> >>qualifying because they can better be (and usually are) > >> >>expressed using integer numbers. > >> > >> [long reasonings elided] > >> > >> alright, have your way then if you need all the complication > >> for so little to gain, and if your scheme gets the votes. > > > >Can you expand on that? > > thanks for asking. > > 1) it is simply not the way counting time as a musician works. > if your measure said 3.5 / 2, you'd count 7 quarters.
In that case yes - but with longer bars, I'd try to find a reference in between my notes. Let's take Paul's nice example. To play the 9 1/2 part, I'd really rather not count to 19, but to 9 - and then I'd expect the next bar to start *in between* my 9 and 10; on the "and", that is. > actually and mathematically proving this unfortunately is > beyond me, you have to try it yourself. Well, why don't we ask someone who actually plays this kind of music seriously? I can only tell you how *I* count when dealing with complex rhythms - and I don't do it all that often. (I've done 5 + 4 beats per bar and that sort of stuff, and it's basically the same thing; you need to "lock" on more relations that 1:1, or there's no way you can both "drift" and not at the same time.) > 2) the first time somebody uses 1/3 and 1/4 at the same time, > accumulating beat algorithms don't give the same result > reliably where they should. Why not? //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------. | Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. | | RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. | `---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---