<sigh> > Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the > representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one > quintuplet-sixteenth". 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) and how much material fits > a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured or > expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what > meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have, > leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation > by involving musical durations for the denominator.
Unless you have a concrete suggestion that you yourself would find satisfactory, I guess it’s fortunate for everyone that I’ve been browbeaten into abandoning my pursuit of this feature. Cheers, Kieren.
