On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 at 18:03 tisimst <tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] <[hidden > email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=196012&i=0>> 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
