Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 5 Nov 2016, at 00:03, David Wright  wrote:

>>> Mairi's Wedding is completely regular; it has five 8-bar
>>> sections, which happens to sum to 40:
>> 
>> But they have to play it A B A B B, where each letter is a 8-bar section.
> 
> For that original tune, that's the usual sequence. But why "But"?
> Lots of tunes are expanded by repeating an 8-bar phrase if they're
> shorter than the dance demands. The dancers couldn't care less so
> long as the music changes after the correct number of bars.
> The next tune (you need several if you're not going to bore people
> with eight times through) might be a tune that has a different
> length and structure. Then there are loads of 48-bar and 64-bar
> dances. None of this variation makes a dance irregular.
> 
> There's a useful introduction at
> http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/Scotland/PlayingForSCD.html

It is an irregularity that has to be compensated for, as this your link. Tunes 
with sections not a power of two occurs in Swedish folk music, for example this 
polska after Höök Olle (in 3/4).
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGWpQVvjBrU



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 21:09:20 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 4 Nov 2016, at 20:31, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 10:55:45 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> >> On 4 Nov 2016, at 03:21, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > (in a different timezone)
> > 
> >>> My own experience of dancing is mainly
> >>> in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
> >>> irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
> >>> 8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
> >>> irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.
> >> 
> >> I have encountered Mairi's Wedding, 8x40 reel:
> >>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairi%27s_Wedding
> > 
> > Mairi's Wedding is completely regular; it has five 8-bar
> > sections, which happens to sum to 40:
> 
> But they have to play it A B A B B, where each letter is a 8-bar section.

For that original tune, that's the usual sequence. But why "But"?
Lots of tunes are expanded by repeating an 8-bar phrase if they're
shorter than the dance demands. The dancers couldn't care less so
long as the music changes after the correct number of bars.
The next tune (you need several if you're not going to bore people
with eight times through) might be a tune that has a different
length and structure. Then there are loads of 48-bar and 64-bar
dances. None of this variation makes a dance irregular.

There's a useful introduction at
http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/Scotland/PlayingForSCD.html

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 4 Nov 2016, at 20:31, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 10:55:45 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2016, at 03:21, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> (in a different timezone)
> 
>>> My own experience of dancing is mainly
>>> in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
>>> irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
>>> 8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
>>> irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.
>> 
>> I have encountered Mairi's Wedding, 8x40 reel:
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairi%27s_Wedding
> 
> Mairi's Wedding is completely regular; it has five 8-bar
> sections, which happens to sum to 40:

But they have to play it A B A B B, where each letter is a 8-bar section.

>>> No, in the sense that the OP didn't ask for any subdivisions so none
>>> were given in my response, see
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00074.html
>> 
>> But there is no tempo given, and how strong is the accent of the 1 relative 
>> that of the 3 before it?
> 
> Impossible for me to say.

Good to know if one performs it.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 10:55:45 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2016, at 03:21, David Wright  wrote:

(in a different timezone)

> > My own experience of dancing is mainly
> > in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
> > irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
> > 8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
> > irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.
> 
> I have encountered Mairi's Wedding, 8x40 reel:
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairi%27s_Wedding

Mairi's Wedding is completely regular; it has five 8-bar
sections, which happens to sum to 40:

. Turn R and cast, turn L;
. ½reel of 4 with 1st corners, then with 2nd;
. then 3rd, then 4th;
. Reels of 3 across;
. 6-hands round and back.

OTOH Foss had to add an extra bit to each normal 8-bar figure to use
up the extra two bars in the tune of The Wee Cooper of Fife (8x40 jig).
This is most obvious in bars 11–20. Rights and lefts (cross R, cross L,
cross R, cross L) takes eight bars; in this dance you cross R an
extra time.

(BTW the 8x has nothing to do with this; it just indicates that each
couple in the 4-couple set will dance the dance in top place, then
"repeat, having passed a couple" in standard parlance, ie start again
in second place.)

[snip]
> > No, in the sense that the OP didn't ask for any subdivisions so none
> > were given in my response, see
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00074.html
> 
> But there is no tempo given, and how strong is the accent of the 1 relative 
> that of the 3 before it?

Impossible for me to say.

Cheers,
David.


wee.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 4 Nov 2016, at 03:21, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 22:08:02 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Nov 2016, at 21:28, David Wright  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 10:37:36 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
 
> On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright  wrote:
> 
>>> The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
>> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
> these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
 
 Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether 
 it might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato 
 counting on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring 
 naturally.
>>> 
>>> But the three notes I referred to weren't in 13/8 or 13/16 because the
>>> last 3 of 3+3+3+3+1 (in 13/8 time) was a made into a duplet.
>> 
>> It was in response to your comment on 13/8 above.
> 
> Oh, OK. Well, I'm not familiar with music in these folk-dancing
> traditions, and don't particularly find it easy to pick up on
> the patterns involved.

Just drop a note if you want some examples. :-)

> My own experience of dancing is mainly
> in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
> irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
> 8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
> irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.

I have encountered Mairi's Wedding, 8x40 reel:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairi%27s_Wedding

Another type of irregularity occurs in "Adiós pueblo de Ayacucho" from Peru, 
which is notated in alternating 2/8 ad 4/8. The meters of the measures are
  ||: 2 | 4 | 4 | 2  |  2 | 4 | 4 | 4 :||

>> In the Leventikos 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, the 3s have duplets metric accents.

>>> What I was pointing out was that we have 13/8 consisting of three
>>> dotted crochets followed by a duplet (two in the time of a dotted
>>> crochet) followed by a quaver. The relationship of these notes is
>>> 6 6 6 3 3 2 and I think most people would struggle with getting
>>> that last note exactly the correct length.
>> 
>> In irregular meters, the opposite happens: one looses the feeling for exact 
>> proportions. So one has to unlearn the idea of exact beats. If you want 
>> exact beats, then you need a sequencer track.
> 
> If you say so.

The Leventikos in 12 typically has very heavy time bends. If you do not follow 
that when playing along, you get out of sync a bit.

>> I am not sure exactly what meter you want, but if the proportions are 
>> 3+3+3+3+1, then it will likely feel like a common 9 = 2+2+2+3 with a slight 
>> time bend shortening the last beat a bit, which is normally done.
> 
> I don't want any meter. All I wanted to do was answer the question
> posed by the OP, but using conventional notation (which, it appears,
> is sufficient) rather than the rather unconventional approach IMO
> posted by Joram.

One can probably find a conventional notation approximation within the time 
bends that occur naturally. If one want a more exact representation, syncing 
tracks would be needed, I think. Another reason for writing a complex time 
signature is to make sure performers don't try to play it exactly.

>> So what are your intended metric accents? If the 1/3 at the end is 
>> subordinate to the i/4, then your meter will sound just like a 9/8 with a 
>> slight time bend, unless lsowed down to a zeibekiko.
> 
> *I* don't have any.

Sorry for that.

> But the OP had 4/4 plus this odd short note, so I
> assumed that they want four beats and a "kick" as I have called it.
> That's why four dotted crochets and a quaver match the OP's request
> IMO.

And we do not know the intended tempo. If it is reasonably high, it will 
probably sound like a 9/8, 9 = 2+2+2+3, with a typical time bend shortening of 
the 3.

> *You* brought up the subject of dividing those dotted crochets,
> I believe, in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00081.html

Hindemith, "Elementary Training", shows such examples how tuplets can be used 
to simplify notation. But that is the only point of it, from the musical point 
of view.

>>> There may be no choice to be made. Perhaps the OP wants four beats and
>>> a kick, and nothing more.
>> 
>> It is ambiguous, as it stands.
> 
> Yes, in the sense that the OP appeared to make a mistake in specifying
> the relative duration of the last note in the bar.

I have assumed that your interpretation is correct, equivalent to 13 = 
3+3+3+3+1.

> No, in the sense that the OP didn't ask for any subdivisions so none
> were given in my response, see
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00074.html

But there is no tempo given, and how strong is the accent of the 1 relative 
that of the 3 before it?



___
lilypond-user 

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 19:50:05 (-0700), mclaren wrote:
> Well, the 3's indicate 3:2 broken tuplets. There seems to be some controversy
> over whether Tobin Chodos really wanted a single 3:2 eighth note at the end
> of every measure. If he does, then the 3's are correct.

Well, I don't perform music like this, so I wouldn't know if there's a
precedent for this notation. I'm just a guy with the temerity to try
and answer the OP's question using conventional notation rather than
something that looks strange.

Where might I find a reference on notation of this sort? Is is on the
web or are there special books?

> If he doesn't, then
> the question was unclear and we're answering something that wasn't asked.

Well, most of us concluded that the OP probably knew what notes should
be contained in each bar better than the appropriate time signature,
looking at the question posed which is how to define the time signature.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Tobin Chodos]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the helpful info.  A teacher of mine called them
"interruplets" (interrupted tuplets).  I think the clearest solution for my
purposes is just:
\compoundMeter #'((3 4) (1 12)).  David's suggestion of 13/8 is workable
but leads to problems with the music in question.

I really enjoyed those Balkan dances!

Tobin



On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:50 PM, mclaren <metachroma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, the 3's indicate 3:2 broken tuplets. There seems to be some
> controversy
> over whether Tobin Chodos really wanted a single 3:2 eighth note at the end
> of every measure. If he does, then the 3's are correct. If he doesn't, then
> the question was unclear and we're answering something that wasn't asked.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.
> nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-
> denominator-tp195829p196116.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

Yes, I realized that. Thanks for the correction. 



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196119.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 02:44:56 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 04.11.2016 um 02:39 schrieb Urs Liska:
> >
> > Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
> >> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> >> to parse it.
> > Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> > to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

But even those who can parse it can also be confused, just not utterly¹.
For example, I would say that the top line² is confusing and the
bottom one isn't, in the example I posted earlier. But somebody liked it.

> To clarify, this wasn't meant as a joke. On the one hand those musicians
> who will be able to perform this kind of music won't have an issue
> reading it.

Well, they might have had an issue on the first occasion that they met
some instance of unconventional notation. They work through it, then
it becomes second nature. Call it learning, training...

> On the other hand there *are* many people arguing that music
> notation is way too complex to learn but who claim to express themselves
> musically anyway.

That's too vague for me to understand the point you're trying to make there.

¹ Disclaimer: I have no idea what was being discussed on facebook.
² which I wasn't happy with until I changed "3" to "1:⅔".

Cheers,
David.


met.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

LOL!  Well said, Urs.

As a practical matter, the musicians who perform Michael Gordon's broken
tuplets don't seem confused by the  notation. You can examples of this in
"Four Kings Fight Five," "Yo, Shakespeare!" and many other pieces by Gordon.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196117.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

Well, the 3's indicate 3:2 broken tuplets. There seems to be some controversy
over whether Tobin Chodos really wanted a single 3:2 eighth note at the end
of every measure. If he does, then the 3's are correct. If he doesn't, then
the question was unclear and we're answering something that wasn't asked.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196116.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

David remarked: 
>"One triplet eighth note" defines a duration of time (which the OP 
> appeared to get wrong in any case). One note cannot form a triplet. 

Sure it can. They're called broken tuplets, and lots of composers use 'em.
Michael Gordon uses broken tuplets all the time. So does Mikel Rouse, Kyle
Gann, and many others.

Single notes can be tuplets of any kind, 4:3, 11:9, 23:17, or whatever. This
is common practice nowadays in what Kyle Gann calls totalist music.

A typical totalist rhythm pattern is something like

qq   q 3:2 q q 3:2 q 3:2 against
5:4  q  q 5:4 5:4 q q 5:4 5:4 

Both measures add up to eight quarter notes, but the pulse is irregular due
to the broken tuplets. 



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196115.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 22:08:02 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Nov 2016, at 21:28, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 10:37:36 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright  wrote:
> >>> 
> > The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
> 
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
> >>> these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
> >> 
> >> Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether 
> >> it might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato 
> >> counting on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring 
> >> naturally.
> > 
> > But the three notes I referred to weren't in 13/8 or 13/16 because the
> > last 3 of 3+3+3+3+1 (in 13/8 time) was a made into a duplet.
> 
> It was in response to your comment on 13/8 above.

Oh, OK. Well, I'm not familiar with music in these folk-dancing
traditions, and don't particularly find it easy to pick up on
the patterns involved. My own experience of dancing is mainly
in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.

> 
> In the Leventikos 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, the 3s have duplets metric accents. 
> But it is hard to express that via meter. When notation, oen just sums it up. 
> Bartok used (4+2+3)/8, that is
>   4+2+3
> 8
> but on the Balkans one would just write 9/8 or 9/16. The beaming can indicate 
> metric subaccents, but LilyPond cannot do that automatically, so I just skip 
> it,
> 
> >>> My example wasn't.
> >> 
> >> Then one add another level on the musical line. One example how this 
> >> occurs metrically is the Leventikos in 12.
> >> 
> > 
> > I don't know what "another level on the musical line" means.
> 
> One performer keeps the meter, and the others follow.
> 
> > What I was pointing out was that we have 13/8 consisting of three
> > dotted crochets followed by a duplet (two in the time of a dotted
> > crochet) followed by a quaver. The relationship of these notes is
> > 6 6 6 3 3 2 and I think most people would struggle with getting
> > that last note exactly the correct length.
> 
> In irregular meters, the opposite happens: one looses the feeling for exact 
> proportions. So one has to unlearn the idea of exact beats. If you want exact 
> beats, then you need a sequencer track.

If you say so.

> I am not sure exactly what meter you want, but if the proportions are 
> 3+3+3+3+1, then it will likely feel like a common 9 = 2+2+2+3 with a slight 
> time bend shortening the last beat a bit, which is normally done.

I don't want any meter. All I wanted to do was answer the question
posed by the OP, but using conventional notation (which, it appears,
is sufficient) rather than the rather unconventional approach IMO
posted by Joram.

> The tune Eleno Mome is often played in 7/8, but exists written as 13/16, 13 = 
> 4+4+2+3, where the 3 has typical 2+1 patterns. In live performances, there 
> might be something between 7/8 and 13/16. But exists written as 12/16, 12 = 
> 3+4+2+3, and a performance plays it as 3+2+2+2+3.
> 
> > Of course, if you adopt a pace where you can form that pattern
> > by grouping 26 rapid claps or whatever, then it can get simpler,
> > but I was talking in the context of straightforward note values
> > as sung by, say, a classical singer.
> 
> On Balkans, they use 3s and 2s, counting on the fingers, for example 11 = 
> 2+2+3+2+2. This way, smaller differences than be performed.
> 
> But you might try using flute articulation t-k and t-k-t patterns.
> 
>  This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on 
>  the 3s - se my other post in this thread.
> >>> 
> >>> OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
> >>> durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
> >>> So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
> >>> that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.
> >> 
> >> Yes, indeed. In the Leventikos, the quadruplet pattern occurs 
> >> consistently. When performing, there are slower 1/16th contrasted with 
> >> faster ones. Some performers have triplets on the 2s, and quintuplets 
> >> occur in Balkan music as well. So it can be more complex.
> >> 
> >>> I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
> >>> 3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
> >>> time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
> >>> The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
> >>> 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.
> >> 
> >> A problem with this meter is that the 1/3 at the end is fairly short, so 
> >> it may be distorted by metric time bends: there is a tendency in Balkan 
> >> music 

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.11.2016 um 02:39 schrieb Urs Liska:
>
> Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
>> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
>> to parse it.
> Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

To clarify, this wasn't meant as a joke. On the one hand those musicians
who will be able to perform this kind of music won't have an issue
reading it. On the other hand there *are* many people arguing that music
notation is way too complex to learn but who claim to express themselves
musically anyway.

Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.11.2016 um 01:56 schrieb mclaren:
> Oops. Unless I'm mistaken, 4 + 1 triplet eighth note would be 4 + 1/6, not 4
> + 1/3.

You *are* mistaken. 4 quarters + 1 triplet eight is 4/4 + 1/12.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 18:00:59 (-0700), mclaren wrote:
> "Wouldn't that rather be (4 + 2/3)/4?"
> 
> Yes, I think you're right. 1/3 is presumably half of the value of a triplet
> quarter note, so 1 triplet eighth note. I've corrected that in my second
> Lilypond example. My bad.
> 
> Change the "6" denominator in my new Lilypond code to a 3 to get the meter
> to display correctly. But the measures do print correctly, so this code
> should get what Tobin Chodos wants, I think, 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet
> eighth in every measure.

I think Joram pointed that out in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-10/msg00584.html
and most/all of this discussion has made that assumption. AFAIK the
OP has neither confirmed nor disagreed with this change.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Urs Liska]

Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> to parse it.

Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 17:13:14 (-0700), mclaren wrote:
> I have an even more diabolical question, related to the one at the start of
> this thread. 
> 
> But let me first answer the original question, which was: "Is there a way to
> implement a non-binary time signature like 4 + 1/3?" I think I know a way to
> do this.
> 
> This seems like an entirely valid question. 1/3 would be a single triplet
> note, right? That is, if we're dealing with (4 + 1/3)/4, then what we want
> is 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet quarter note, correct?  In that case, can't
> we get the same effect by doing [X number of triplets equivalent to 4
> quarter notes] + 1 triplet quarter note?
> 
> The number of triplet quarter notes = 4 quarter note is of course 12,
> therefore the total is 12 + 1 triplet quarter notes, and therefore the time
> signature should be 13/3.

Um, I'm trying to find the difference between that and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-10/msg00586.html

Why do you have a denominator of "3". Why not 13/2 or 13/4 or 13/8 or 13/16?

> And here's an example of the score output on imgur:
> http://imgur.com/a/cSyML

To me, that looks like
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-10/msg00584.html
except that you've suppressed the "a a" following the barline check
which Joram didn't bother to do.

That's the first thing you do (and I did).
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00074.html

Then you look at it again and realise that those number "3"s that
pepper the score are inappropriate as there isn't 3 of anything.
The obvious thing to do is to change to the ratio annotation, as in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00083.html

> Now here's my even more diabolical question:
> How do you get Lilypond to do a meter and print barlines properly on a time
> signature like
> 4 + (square root of 3)? And get valid page breaks?

I dpn't know. This seems to have more to do with mathematics than any
music I enjoy performing or listening to.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

Yes, Thomas Ades and Brian Ferneyhough and Kyle Gann and many others have
written music in non-binary meters like 7/6 and 21/10 and so on. This is
hardly unusual nowadays. In fact, these kinds of meters go all the way back
to Henry Cowell's "New Musical Resources," written in 1930, though Cowell
used idiosyncratic notation (diamond-shaped and square-shaped noteheads)
instead of a non-binary meter. But this kind of stuff has been done in
serious contemporary music since 1930 at least, so it's hardly
earth-shattering or exotic.

Irrational meters like 5 in the time of the cube root of 1119, now, that's
considered exotic today.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196107.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

"Wouldn't that rather be (4 + 2/3)/4?"

Yes, I think you're right. 1/3 is presumably half of the value of a triplet
quarter note, so 1 triplet eighth note. I've corrected that in my second
Lilypond example. My bad.

Change the "6" denominator in my new Lilypond code to a 3 to get the meter
to display correctly. But the measures do print correctly, so this code
should get what Tobin Chodos wants, I think, 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet
eighth in every measure.





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196104.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

Tobin Chodos mentioned: "That is, the measure is four quarter notes long plus
one triplet eighth note."

Oops. Unless I'm mistaken, 4 + 1 triplet eighth note would be 4 + 1/6, not 4
+ 1/3. My Lilypond code was based on the assumption that you had 4 quarter
notes + 1 triplet quarter note. 

Here's the Lilypond code for 4 + 1/6 meter, i.e., 4 quarter notes + 1
triplet eighth note in every measure.

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 

#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
%\layout {}

indent=0
<<
  
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
   \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \time 13/8
% We need this time signature to get the beat
% structure, but this time signature won't print.
% Now we insert the time sig that does print. 

% This is the time signature that will print

 \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.text = 
  \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number { 
\concat { "4 + 1" } 
  \hspace #-0.1 
  \override #'(offset . -32) 
  \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   "6"}


\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 1265/780)
% This sets the barline locations. I had to play around with this
% make-moment value to get the barlines to place properly. AFAICT
% this make-moment vlaue is a by-guess-and-by-God "magic" value
% that has to be fiddled with by trial and error to get it right.
\relative c''
\scaleDurations 3/2 {

   c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4  b a  c  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d f, g  \tuplet
3/2{b8}  c4 d c f, \tuplet 3/2{b8} e4  f g  d  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d f, g 
\tuplet 3/2{b8}  c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4  d f  e  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d
f, g  \tuplet 3/2{b8}
\bar ""
\break
c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4  b a  c  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d f, g  \tuplet
3/2{b8}  c4 d c f, \tuplet 3/2{b8} e4  f g  d  \tuplet 3/2{b8}

} 
}

%\new Staff { \clef "bass"
% \relative c,
   
%  \time 4/4
%\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 4/4)
 %{a,4 b, c d  a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d}
%}
>>  








--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196103.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Martin Neubauer]

On 04/11/2016 01:13, mclaren wrote:

> This seems like an entirely valid question. 1/3 would be a single triplet
> note, right? That is, if we're dealing with (4 + 1/3)/4, then what we want
> is 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet quarter note, correct?
Wouldn't that be rather (4 + 2/3)/4?

-- 
Not the actual page, because it contains nothing. It's just the
content.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[mclaren]

I have an even more diabolical question, related to the one at the start of
this thread. 

But let me first answer the original question, which was: "Is there a way to
implement a non-binary time signature like 4 + 1/3?" I think I know a way to
do this.

This seems like an entirely valid question. 1/3 would be a single triplet
note, right? That is, if we're dealing with (4 + 1/3)/4, then what we want
is 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet quarter note, correct?  In that case, can't
we get the same effect by doing [X number of triplets equivalent to 4
quarter notes] + 1 triplet quarter note?

The number of triplet quarter notes = 4 quarter note is of course 12,
therefore the total is 12 + 1 triplet quarter notes, and therefore the time
signature should be 13/3.

Fortunately, the Lilypond snippets show us how to get a non-binary time
signature like this. The solution is two fold: first, set te time signature
to 13/4 and erase the time signature so it doesn't plrint and then insert an
artificial time signature which gets printed but not used. Second, use
\scaleDurations to get triplets for all notes in each measure.

Here's my Lilypond code:

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 

#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
%\layout {}

indent=0
<<
  
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
   \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \time 13/8
% We need this time signature to get the beat
% structure, but this time signature won't print.
% Now we insert the time sig that does print. 

% This is the time signature that will print

 \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.text = 
  \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number { 
\concat { "4 + 1" } 
  \hspace #-0.1 
  \override #'(offset . -32) 
  \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   "3"}


\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 1364/780)
% This sets the barline locations. I had to play around with this
% make-moment value to get the barlines to place properly. AFAICT
% this make-moment vlaue is a by-guess-and-by-God "magic" value
% that has to be fiddled with by trial and error to get it right.
\relative c''
\scaleDurations 3/2 {

   c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4  b a  c  \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4 d f, g  \tuplet
3/2{b4}  c4 d c f, \tuplet 3/2{b4} e4  f g  d  \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4 d f, g 
\tuplet 3/2{b4}  c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4  d f  e  \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4 d
f, g  \tuplet 3/2{b4}
\bar ""
\break
c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4  b a  c  \tuplet 3/2{b4} c4 d f, g  \tuplet
3/2{b4}  c4 d c f, \tuplet 3/2{b4} e4  f g  d  \tuplet 3/2{b4}

} 
}

%\new Staff { \clef "bass"
% \relative c,
   
%  \time 4/4
%\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 4/4)
 %{a,4 b, c d  a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d}
%}
>>  

And here's an example of the score output on imgur:
http://imgur.com/a/cSyML

Now here's my even more diabolical question:
How do you get Lilypond to do a meter and print barlines properly on a time
signature like
4 + (square root of 3)? And get valid page breaks?







--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196098.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 3 Nov 2016, at 21:28, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 10:37:36 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright  wrote:
>>> 
> The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.

>>> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
>>> these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
>> 
>> Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether it 
>> might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato 
>> counting on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring 
>> naturally.
> 
> But the three notes I referred to weren't in 13/8 or 13/16 because the
> last 3 of 3+3+3+3+1 (in 13/8 time) was a made into a duplet.

It was in response to your comment on 13/8 above.

In the Leventikos 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, the 3s have duplets metric accents. But 
it is hard to express that via meter. When notation, oen just sums it up. 
Bartok used (4+2+3)/8, that is
  4+2+3
8
but on the Balkans one would just write 9/8 or 9/16. The beaming can indicate 
metric subaccents, but LilyPond cannot do that automatically, so I just skip it,

>>> My example wasn't.
>> 
>> Then one add another level on the musical line. One example how this occurs 
>> metrically is the Leventikos in 12.
>> 
> 
> I don't know what "another level on the musical line" means.

One performer keeps the meter, and the others follow.

> What I was pointing out was that we have 13/8 consisting of three
> dotted crochets followed by a duplet (two in the time of a dotted
> crochet) followed by a quaver. The relationship of these notes is
> 6 6 6 3 3 2 and I think most people would struggle with getting
> that last note exactly the correct length.

In irregular meters, the opposite happens: one looses the feeling for exact 
proportions. So one has to unlearn the idea of exact beats. If you want exact 
beats, then you need a sequencer track.

I am not sure exactly what meter you want, but if the proportions are 
3+3+3+3+1, then it will likely feel like a common 9 = 2+2+2+3 with a slight 
time bend shortening the last beat a bit, which is normally done.

The tune Eleno Mome is often played in 7/8, but exists written as 13/16, 13 = 
4+4+2+3, where the 3 has typical 2+1 patterns. In live performances, there 
might be something between 7/8 and 13/16. But exists written as 12/16, 12 = 
3+4+2+3, and a performance plays it as 3+2+2+2+3.

> Of course, if you adopt a pace where you can form that pattern
> by grouping 26 rapid claps or whatever, then it can get simpler,
> but I was talking in the context of straightforward note values
> as sung by, say, a classical singer.

On Balkans, they use 3s and 2s, counting on the fingers, for example 11 = 
2+2+3+2+2. This way, smaller differences than be performed.

But you might try using flute articulation t-k and t-k-t patterns.

 This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on 
 the 3s - se my other post in this thread.
>>> 
>>> OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
>>> durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
>>> So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
>>> that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.
>> 
>> Yes, indeed. In the Leventikos, the quadruplet pattern occurs consistently. 
>> When performing, there are slower 1/16th contrasted with faster ones. Some 
>> performers have triplets on the 2s, and quintuplets occur in Balkan music as 
>> well. So it can be more complex.
>> 
>>> I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
>>> 3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
>>> time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
>>> The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
>>> 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.
>> 
>> A problem with this meter is that the 1/3 at the end is fairly short, so it 
>> may be distorted by metric time bends: there is a tendency in Balkan music 
>> to shorten the measure at the end.
> 
> Hey, that's my point. You call it "metric time bends" and that's fine
> in the context of your musical examples

Then it sound as a regular 9/8 or 9/16.

>> So the question is how to bring out the triplet nature. Otherwise replacing 
>> the 1/3 with 1/4 or 1/2 might do well, from the practical point of view. The 
>> meter 9 = 2+2+2+3 is very common, so at faster tempo, your meter may sound 
>> like this one. Some examples:
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-2HVFc4k_k
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ycWoNozLY
> 
> I think you're on a different journey. I'm not trying to "bring out
> the triplet nature" in anything. Perhaps you were misled by my second
> sentence,
> 
> "Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note."
> 
> The "triplet" in that sentence refers back to the OP's
> 
> "the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet 

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 10:37:36 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 22:13:54 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 2 Nov 2016, at 21:08, David Wright  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 20:10:39 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>  
> > On 28 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Wright  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
> >> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a 
> >> way to
> >> define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
> >> measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
> > 
> > Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
> > So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
> > four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
>  
>  Indeed, 12/8 may be complicated notationally if the beats of length 3/8 
>  are divided into twos and fours, so 4/4 might be preferred.
> >>> 
> >>> Now that would be interesting. Are the last three notes of the first
> >>> bar realistically performable? OTOH splitting the long notes into
> >>> threes would be straightforward to perform (and to write in 13/8).
> >> 
> >> It is, if the tempo is not too high, and one devices a method for counting.
> >> 
> >>> The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
> >> 
> >> At moderato, 1/4 = 120, 13/16 is performable counting on 2s and 3s. One 
> >> example is Krivo Sadovsko horo (Bulgaria), 13 = 4+5+4, 4=2+2, 5 = 2+3:
> >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCuUWnwM28
> >> Another is Ispayche horo, 13 = 3+2+3+2+3
> >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU2za0rbzs
> >> 
> >> At higher tempo, one may need to count on 3s, 4s, and 5s, especially when 
> >> clapping hands:
> >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecsGYwtVJM
> >> This is a Leventikos, in video video, it is in 16 = 4+2+3+4+3, but the 
> >> clap hands 4+5+4+3.
> >>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leventikos
> > 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
> > these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
> 
> Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether it 
> might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato counting 
> on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring naturally.

But the three notes I referred to weren't in 13/8 or 13/16 because the
last 3 of 3+3+3+3+1 (in 13/8 time) was a made into a duplet.

> > My example wasn't.
> 
> Then one add another level on the musical line. One example how this occurs 
> metrically is the Leventikos in 12.
> 

I don't know what "another level on the musical line" means.

What I was pointing out was that we have 13/8 consisting of three
dotted crochets followed by a duplet (two in the time of a dotted
crochet) followed by a quaver. The relationship of these notes is
6 6 6 3 3 2 and I think most people would struggle with getting
that last note exactly the correct length.

Of course, if you adopt a pace where you can form that pattern
by grouping 26 rapid claps or whatever, then it can get simpler,
but I was talking in the context of straightforward note values
as sung by, say, a classical singer.

> >> This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on 
> >> the 3s - se my other post in this thread.
> > 
> > OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
> > durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
> > So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
> > that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.
> 
> Yes, indeed. In the Leventikos, the quadruplet pattern occurs consistently. 
> When performing, there are slower 1/16th contrasted with faster ones. Some 
> performers have triplets on the 2s, and quintuplets occur in Balkan music as 
> well. So it can be more complex.
> 
> > I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
> > 3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
> > time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
> > The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
> > 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.
> 
> A problem with this meter is that the 1/3 at the end is fairly short, so it 
> may be distorted by metric time bends: there is a tendency in Balkan music to 
> shorten the measure at the end.

Hey, that's my point. You call it "metric time bends" and that's fine
in the context of your musical examples.

> So the question is how to bring out the triplet nature. Otherwise replacing 
> the 1/3 with 1/4 or 1/2 might do well, from the practical point of view. The 
> meter 9 = 2+2+2+3 is very common, so at faster tempo, your meter may sound 
> like this one. Some examples:
>   

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 22:13:54 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2 Nov 2016, at 21:08, David Wright  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 20:10:39 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
 
> On 28 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
>> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way 
>> to
>> define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
>> measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
> 
> Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
> So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
> four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
 
 Indeed, 12/8 may be complicated notationally if the beats of length 3/8 
 are divided into twos and fours, so 4/4 might be preferred.
>>> 
>>> Now that would be interesting. Are the last three notes of the first
>>> bar realistically performable? OTOH splitting the long notes into
>>> threes would be straightforward to perform (and to write in 13/8).
>> 
>> It is, if the tempo is not too high, and one devices a method for counting.
>> 
>>> The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
>> 
>> At moderato, 1/4 = 120, 13/16 is performable counting on 2s and 3s. One 
>> example is Krivo Sadovsko horo (Bulgaria), 13 = 4+5+4, 4=2+2, 5 = 2+3:
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCuUWnwM28
>> Another is Ispayche horo, 13 = 3+2+3+2+3
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU2za0rbzs
>> 
>> At higher tempo, one may need to count on 3s, 4s, and 5s, especially when 
>> clapping hands:
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecsGYwtVJM
>> This is a Leventikos, in video video, it is in 16 = 4+2+3+4+3, but the clap 
>> hands 4+5+4+3.
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leventikos
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
> these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.

Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether it 
might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato counting 
on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring naturally.

> My example wasn't.

Then one add another level on the musical line. One example how this occurs 
metrically is the Leventikos in 12.

>> This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on the 
>> 3s - se my other post in this thread.
> 
> OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
> durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
> So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
> that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.

Yes, indeed. In the Leventikos, the quadruplet pattern occurs consistently. 
When performing, there are slower 1/16th contrasted with faster ones. Some 
performers have triplets on the 2s, and quintuplets occur in Balkan music as 
well. So it can be more complex.

> I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
> 3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
> time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
> The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
> 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.

A problem with this meter is that the 1/3 at the end is fairly short, so it may 
be distorted by metric time bends: there is a tendency in Balkan music to 
shorten the measure at the end.

So the question is how to bring out the triplet nature. Otherwise replacing the 
1/3 with 1/4 or 1/2 might do well, from the practical point of view. The meter 
9 = 2+2+2+3 is very common, so at faster tempo, your meter may sound like this 
one. Some examples:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-2HVFc4k_k
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ycWoNozLY

> At the bottom are the versions with undivided notes, with
> the 1/12 notes represented in the only way I can think of.
> 
> One interesting thing that popped out of my 3/8 notation is
> that the odd quaver at the end of each bar can be linked to
> the three quavers in the next bar. The upshot is that the
> overall rhythm is a repeated (4-slow 4-fast 3-slow 4-fast).

Syncopations are common in Balkan music, also on the ornamental level.

> The same rhythm is contained in the 4/4+1/12 notation, but
> is it easy to spot? You could make it obvious by writing
>   4:2⅔
> ┌———┐ over it, and leave people to ponder whether its
> speed is the same as the triplet's. Lets' see, 2⅔ is 8/3
> so 4:(8/3) is 4*3:8 is 12:8 is 3:2. Success.
> 
> Having that 1/8 quaver sitting next to the other three makes
> the rhythm quite friendly. If the first beat of the bar is
> an undivided dotted crochet, that last quaver is much
> harder to time correctly. Of course, we have no idea what
> the OP wanted to 

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 22:13:54 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 2 Nov 2016, at 21:08, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 20:10:39 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 28 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Wright  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
>  Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way 
>  to
>  define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
>  measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
> >>> 
> >>> Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
> >>> So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
> >>> four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
> >> 
> >> Indeed, 12/8 may be complicated notationally if the beats of length 3/8 
> >> are divided into twos and fours, so 4/4 might be preferred.
> > 
> > Now that would be interesting. Are the last three notes of the first
> > bar realistically performable? OTOH splitting the long notes into
> > threes would be straightforward to perform (and to write in 13/8).
> 
> It is, if the tempo is not too high, and one devices a method for counting.
> 
> > The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
> 
> At moderato, 1/4 = 120, 13/16 is performable counting on 2s and 3s. One 
> example is Krivo Sadovsko horo (Bulgaria), 13 = 4+5+4, 4=2+2, 5 = 2+3:
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCuUWnwM28
> Another is Ispayche horo, 13 = 3+2+3+2+3
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU2za0rbzs
> 
> At higher tempo, one may need to count on 3s, 4s, and 5s, especially when 
> clapping hands:
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecsGYwtVJM
> This is a Leventikos, in video video, it is in 16 = 4+2+3+4+3, but the clap 
> hands 4+5+4+3.
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leventikos

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
My example wasn't.

> This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on the 
> 3s - se my other post in this thread.

OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.

I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.

At the bottom are the versions with undivided notes, with
the 1/12 notes represented in the only way I can think of.

One interesting thing that popped out of my 3/8 notation is
that the odd quaver at the end of each bar can be linked to
the three quavers in the next bar. The upshot is that the
overall rhythm is a repeated (4-slow 4-fast 3-slow 4-fast).

The same rhythm is contained in the 4/4+1/12 notation, but
is it easy to spot? You could make it obvious by writing
   4:2⅔
┌———┐ over it, and leave people to ponder whether its
speed is the same as the triplet's. Lets' see, 2⅔ is 8/3
so 4:(8/3) is 4*3:8 is 12:8 is 3:2. Success.

Having that 1/8 quaver sitting next to the other three makes
the rhythm quite friendly. If the first beat of the bar is
an undivided dotted crochet, that last quaver is much
harder to time correctly. Of course, we have no idea what
the OP wanted to set to their "4/4+1/3" signature, how it
would be divided etc.

Cheers,
David.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 2 Nov 2016, at 21:08, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 20:10:39 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Wright  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
 Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
 define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
 measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
>>> 
>>> Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
>>> So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
>>> four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
>> 
>> Indeed, 12/8 may be complicated notationally if the beats of length 3/8 are 
>> divided into twos and fours, so 4/4 might be preferred.
> 
> Now that would be interesting. Are the last three notes of the first
> bar realistically performable? OTOH splitting the long notes into
> threes would be straightforward to perform (and to write in 13/8).

It is, if the tempo is not too high, and one devices a method for counting.

> The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.

At moderato, 1/4 = 120, 13/16 is performable counting on 2s and 3s. One example 
is Krivo Sadovsko horo (Bulgaria), 13 = 4+5+4, 4=2+2, 5 = 2+3:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCuUWnwM28
Another is Ispayche horo, 13 = 3+2+3+2+3
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU2za0rbzs

At higher tempo, one may need to count on 3s, 4s, and 5s, especially when 
clapping hands:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecsGYwtVJM
This is a Leventikos, in video video, it is in 16 = 4+2+3+4+3, but the clap 
hands 4+5+4+3.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leventikos
This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on the 3s 
- se my other post in this thread.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 20:10:39 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 28 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
> >> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
> >> define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
> >> measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
> > 
> > Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
> > So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
> > four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
> 
> Indeed, 12/8 may be complicated notationally if the beats of length 3/8 are 
> divided into twos and fours, so 4/4 might be preferred.

Now that would be interesting. Are the last three notes of the first
bar realistically performable? OTOH splitting the long notes into
threes would be straightforward to perform (and to write in 13/8).

The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.

Cheers,
David.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 2 Nov 2016, at 19:02, tisimst  wrote:
> 
> ... as Kieren and I saw on a facebook group the other day when a composer 
> started a discussion about having a bar with an "irrational" 2/6 time 
> signature. Wow, the flames that ensued! It's quite simple:
> 
> { \time 2/6 \tuplet 3/2 { c'4 c' } }
> 
> ... with or without the tuplet number/bracket.

I gave an example of a true irrational time signature [1]. The code is actually 
written in 12/8 (with a MIDI approximation in 19/8). In 12/8, as both the 3/8s 
and the 2/8s are divided into four parts, tuplets will remain. 

1. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-06/msg00237.html



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Hans Åberg]

> On 28 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
>> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
>> define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
>> measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
> 
> Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
> So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
> four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.

Indeed, 12/8 may be complicated notationally if the beats of length 3/8 are 
divided into twos and fours, so 4/4 might be preferred.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Chris Yate]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 at 18:03 tisimst  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] <[hidden
> email] > wrote:
>
> It's *legitimate* in all musical circles, though it's not *embraced* by
> all.
>
> ... as Kieren and I saw on a facebook group the other day when a composer
> started a discussion about having a bar with an "irrational" 2/6 time
> signature. Wow, the flames that ensued! It's quite simple:
>
> { \time 2/6 \tuplet 3/2 { c'4 c' } }
>
> ... with or without the tuplet number/bracket.
>
> -
> Abraham
>

Like so many things in life and art, just because you *can* doesn't mean
you *should* ;-)

Luckily, in Lilypond you *can* :-D

Given almost any rhythm could be expressed without the use of silly time
signatures (possibly by eliminating bar lines for a short section, or maybe
writing extra bars*). It makes sense to make life easy for your players,
rather than show off just how clever you are.

I've very occasionally had to play a bar or two of 4/3, and it
unnecessarily complicates something that's already difficult; particularly
as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how to parse it.

Chris

* yes, it could be difficult to write the same bar lines for all players.
Better I think to write partial bar lines and readable rhythms. The same
argument stands for ridiculous key signatures, whether an explicit key sig,
or written as something like a scale of F double-sharp
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[tisimst]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n196008...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> It's *legitimate* in all musical circles, though it's not *embraced* by
> all.
>
... as Kieren and I saw on a facebook group the other day when a composer
started a discussion about having a bar with an "irrational" 2/6 time
signature. Wow, the flames that ensued! It's quite simple:

{ \time 2/6 \tuplet 3/2 { c'4 c' } }

... with or without the tuplet number/bracket.

--
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196012.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

> On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 12:49:07 (-0400), kieren_macmillan kieren_macmillan 
> wrote:
> 
>
> I guess I had expected a reference/url/scan rather than "yes".

Zere is some music notation zat makes me 'url.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Wed 02 Nov 2016 at 12:49:07 (-0400), kieren_macmillan kieren_macmillan wrote:


I guess I had expected a reference/url/scan rather than "yes".
I realise that all sorts of "odd" notations were around in
preclassical times, But wouldn't claim to understand them.

Does the example I've given correctly express the required
relationship between the notes' durations (which is kind of what we
expect with modern music notation).

Say I write 9/6 at the start of a staff. Which glyph do I pick out of
appendix A of the NR manual to follow it with?

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[kieren_macmillan kieren_macmillan]

 
  Hi David,
  It's *legitimate* in all musical circles, though it's not *embraced* by all.
  Cheers,Kieren.
  
   -- Original Message --From: David Wright Date: November 2, 2016 at 12:45 PMOn Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 21:13:57 (+0200), Noeck wrote:> > Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way> > to define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3? That is,> > the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.> > this is definitely a valid question for this list!> This snippet will help you, I guess:> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=743> > However the additional 1/3 is the length of a triplet half note:> 1/3 = 1/2 * 2/3> > \version "2.19.36"> > \relative c' {> \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 3))> a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a2 | a a }> }> > For a 4/4 measure plus a triplet 8th note, you would need 1/12 if I am> not mistaken:> > \relative c' {> \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 12))> a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a8 | a a }> }So is this legitimate notation in some circles nowadays?Cheers,David.___lilypond-user mailing listlilypond-user@gnu.orghttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
  
 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 21:13:57 (+0200), Noeck wrote:
> > Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way
> > to define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is,
> > the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.
> 
> this is definitely a valid question for this list!
> This snippet will help you, I guess:
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=743
> 
> However the additional 1/3 is the length of a triplet half note:
> 1/3 = 1/2 * 2/3
> 
> \version "2.19.36"
> 
> \relative c' {
>   \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 3))
>   a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a2 | a a }
> }
> 
> For a 4/4 measure plus a triplet 8th note, you would need 1/12 if I am
> not mistaken:
> 
> \relative c' {
>   \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 12))
>   a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a8 | a a }
> }

So is this legitimate notation in some circles nowadays?

Cheers,
David.
\relative c' {
  \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 12))
  a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a8 | } a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a8 | }
}

\relative c' {
  \time 13/8
  a4. a a a a8 | a4. a a a a8 |
}


met.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Simon Albrecht]

On 28.10.2016 21:50, Noeck wrote:

Btw, having the new list syntax in mind I wondered whether this would
work in recent development versions:

\compoundMeter 4/4,1/3

But it does not the 4/4 translates to (4 . 4) and not (4 4).
\compoundMeter (4,4),(1,3) does not work either. Can this list syntax be
grouped somehow? I mean in a way that is nicer to write than the scheme
syntax, otherwise nothing is gained.


Such a feature is not yet implemented. And I don’t think there is any 
obvious way of extending the current syntax to allow such nested lists, 
since it doesn’t have any delimiters for start and end of the list 
except for the spaces. We certainly can’t do

\compoundMeter  4,4 , 1,3
since spaces are not supposed to make such a difference in LilyPond code.

Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Noeck]

Btw, having the new list syntax in mind I wondered whether this would
work in recent development versions:

\compoundMeter 4/4,1/3

But it does not the 4/4 translates to (4 . 4) and not (4 4).
\compoundMeter (4,4),(1,3) does not work either. Can this list syntax be
grouped somehow? I mean in a way that is nicer to write than the scheme
syntax, otherwise nothing is gained.

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
> define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
> measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.

Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
And if you divide your crochet beats in twos, they'll have to be
written out as duplets of eighth notes.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Noeck]

> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way
> to define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is,
> the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.

Hi Tobin,

this is definitely a valid question for this list!
This snippet will help you, I guess:
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=743

However the additional 1/3 is the length of a triplet half note:
1/3 = 1/2 * 2/3

\version "2.19.36"

\relative c' {
  \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 3))
  a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a2 | a a }
}

For a 4/4 measure plus a triplet 8th note, you would need 1/12 if I am
not mistaken:

\relative c' {
  \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 12))
  a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a8 | a a }
}


HTH,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Tobin Chodos]

Hi all,

Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.

Thanks.

Tobin Chodos
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user