On 1 Jul 2005 at 23:02, Owain Sutton wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > I don't agree that it's problematic to indicate something like E = E > > when there's a change of time signature whose interpretation is > > ambiguous. The hard part is when it's something like Q = H, where it > > may be that the old quarter equals the new half, or the old half > > equals the new quarter. > > Provided it's positioned with the '=' directly over the barline, I > don't see how there could be any ambiguity in this. I've never > encountered anyone getting confused by such a notation.
I've heard discussions of which way it is to be interpreted, as "new Q = old H" or as "old Q = new H". I think both are actually valid interpretations, and just placing the = over the barline seems to me to be insufficient, which is why I add the arrows. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
