> On 7 Nov 2014, at 10:08, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hans Aberg <[email protected]> writes: > >>> On 6 Nov 2014, at 21:42, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hans Aberg <[email protected]> writes: >> >>>> You wanted \compoundMeter to be numeric, so I gave a possible >>>> algorithmic structure, reiterating discussions of the past on LilyPond >>>> lists. Once one has that, the time signature derives from that, the >>>> question you are asking about. >>> >>> I guess I am just too far below the intelligence of your target audience >>> to understand even a single sentence of what you are saying. >>> >>> It seems like we need an interpreter between mathematician and engineer. >>> Is there a physicist around? >> >> Carl Sorensen worked on this stuff back in 2012, and implemented >> \set beatStructure = #'(4 3 4) >> Before one had to write something like >> \set beatGrouping = #'(4 3 4) >> #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * 11 16) 4 16) >> #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * 11 16) 7 16) >> >> The new beatStructure is simpler, but it fails capturing the hierarchy of >> subaccents. >> >> So this is the question one ends up with when trying to implement >> automated forms of compound meter time signatures. > > The question was when to use 4/4 and when to use C in a time signature. > This is not related to the accent structure of the music as much as it > is to the century of its origin and the conventions used in its > respective music field. Math does not provide answers to the particular > distinction this thread is about since the math behind C and 4/4 is > quite the same.
The “+” notation I think is quite recent, possibly invented by Béla Bartók and Vinko Žganec for the description of Balkan meters. So the use of anything else than numerals is a modernity. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
