> On 8 Nov 2016, at 23:41, Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-11-08 22:20 GMT+01:00 Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com>: > >> And a reason of writing a complex time signature might be to make it >> impossible for the performer to follow it: In Balkan music, one plays by >> ear, and the variation is greater than the irrational time signature >> examples I gave. A Western musician when seeing 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2 with >> quadruplets on them, might try to play it as exactly as possible, but that >> is not how it should be performed. > > Let me step in here. > > This sounds (partly) like obfuscating the music to force the reader of > the score to do some thorough studies before trying to perform.
Western composers have done it for a long time. Somebody wrote time signatures with e and pi decades ago, and modern complexity takes it to an another level. Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46w99bZ3W_M As for myself, I just happened to discover a way to typeset it. > Isn't it a good idea to do _always_ such studies? > You can't even perform baroque-music adequat without them. > Another example, I recall several printed editions of > Flamenco-Alegrias in 3/4, but following exactly the 3/4 would come out > completely wrong. It's often easier to get an raw glance, though. > > Reading a score is not (and never was) enough to get an impression how > the music _should_ sound or to perform it. > > So I ask myself, why make it even more difficult for the reader with > impossible things? But for whom do you notate? Flamenco music does not notate the correct time signature. If you would toss skilled Western musicians a score, how would you notate it? Getting them to study Flamenco music and its notational traditions would be very costly. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
