[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Complex time signature
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: Complex time signature |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:48 +0100 |
On 14 Jan 2011, at 21:57, Arle Lommel wrote:
Somebody in this list used the notation of writing just the number
in the staff, and the '+' decomposition above it and the staff
within parenthesis in smaller size. That seems me to be a good
idea. The '+' is not needed if the decomposition can be seen from
the beaming.
Seems like a good way to approach it. I prefer the format I use in
some work I've, but primarily because I was writing pieces with
shifting polymetrics and preferred to make everything rather
obvious. But the idea you mention does seem appropriate where the
emphasis in the score is not on the rhythm and something more
discreet is desired.
I think this is better for those are used to it, and those that are
may such a courtesy decomposition, which one can put in, if one thinks
it is needed. It depends on the intended readership.
I have a Bulgarian example shifting irregularly between 9/16 and
11/16. Then in the first measure both meters are given (actually with
a '+' which I think should not be there), and for the rest of the
measures the meter is given. But there are no '+' subdivisions given,
though it is in a school, with the rhythm given by notes above.
- Re: Complex time signature, (continued)
- RE: Complex time signature, James Lowe, 2011/01/14
- Re: Complex time signature, Arle Lommel, 2011/01/14
- Re:Complex time signature, Arle Lommel, 2011/01/14
- Re: Complex time signature, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/01/14
- Re: Complex time signature, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/01/14
- Re: Complex time signature, Patrick Horgan, 2011/01/15
Re: Complex time signature, Arle Lommel, 2011/01/14