Hi Elaine (et al.), >> 1. For 7/8 and sim., I like “irregular”. > > I am unconvinced 7/8 represents any kind of category of time signatures > that we need to label. Is there a use case that lilypond needs a word or > distinction for this?
The OP literally started the thread with “Would anyone here who teaches music in the English language…”, so until that has been explicitly eliminated as a metric, we should probably honour it. I’ve taught music theory in colleges and privately for decades, and I’ve found this distinction extremely helpful (and basically essential for beginning students). >> 2. For (3+4)/8 and sim., I like “additive”. > Downvote. Additive is the term used in the primary Wikipedia article about time signatures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature#Additive_meters For for better or worse, Wikipedia is the main reference source most of students use nowadays — either directly or indirectly (via AI) — so at the very least, I think Lilypond should use any terms used by primary reference sources the way they primary sources use them, and not for something totally different from what the primary sources apply them to, since that tends to cause a lot of confusion in students/learners. > Musically, I would categorize (3+4)/8 the same as 7/8, which is what I call > an odd time signature, but with the subdivision spelled out in the > numerator. But since this form of signature can be used in time > signatures that are not odd, like 3+2+3/8, that is obviously not a good option Agreed. >> 3. For 3/8+2/4 and sim., I like “mixed”. > Downvote. > I would use the term "additive" for this type See above. Someone might want to compare what vocabulary is used by other “definitive” references (e.g. Gould)…? Cheers, Kieren. __________________________________________________ My work day may look different than your work day. Please do not feel obligated to read or respond to this email outside of your normal working hours.
