lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

 From: address@hidden Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 14:57:12 +0000 (GMT)

```Kieran,

----- Kieren MacMillan <kieren@kierenmacmillan.info> wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
>
> > When Thomas Adès switches from 4/4 to 4/5, there is no way of knowing which
> > "graphical" note length (combination of notehead style and flag count) is
> > supposed to be used for the basic unit (of which 4 make up a bar, and of
> > which five equal the duration of a semibreve).
>
> When someone writes a [numeric] time signature 4/4 — with four “naked”
> quarter notes in the measure completely filling up that measure — the
> performer can work out that 4 represents a quarter-note duration. Replacing
> the numeric denominator "4" with a quarter-note glyph conveys exactly that
> information.
>
> When someone writes a [numeric] time signature 2/6 — with two “naked” quarter
> notes in the measure completely filling up that measure — the performer can
> work out that 6 is “halfway between 4 and 8”, and thus represents a
> triplet-eighth-note duration. Replacing the numeric denominator "6" with a
> triplet-eighth-note glyph conveys exactly that information.
>

Are you sure you mean triplet eights?  I’ve played a piece by Adés with a 2/6
time signature in places and the note I would expect in the denominator would
be a quarter note with a triplet bracket as the notes printed as quarters were
the same value as quarter note triplets due to them being a sixth of a while
note.

-David

> Both of these situations reflect exactly the accepted definition of time
> signature: “how many beats (pulses) are contained in each measure (bar), and
> which note value is equivalent to a beat”.
>
> Please explain the flaw in my logic, because it seems perfectly clear to me
> both in my text description(s) and in that snippet I sent earlier.
>
> Thanks,
> Kieren.

```