The Logic Off Topic list

leon m wrote:
>>> How about a bar of 3/5? Can you suggest a simple alternative?

Hendrik wrote:
>> What exactly would the difference with 3/4 be?

leon m wrote:
> A bar of 3/4 consists of three quarter notes (breve divided by 4). A bar of
> 3/5 consists of three quarter note quintuplets (breve divided by 5). A bar
> of 3/5 will therefore be shorter in length than a bar of 3/4. It is an
> elegant way of modulating tempo.

there inconsistencies in the logic in this.
But some of your points are valid.

question #1: for you, what is a quarter note quintuplet?
When you say that, I take my bar of 4/4 and divide each beat by 5 giving me 
16th note quintuplets. I then group them in groups of 2 for eighth note 
quintuplets and groups of 4 for quarter note quintuplets (just like you would do 
with triplets). The result is 5 beats of 4 16th notes per beat, which is a simple 
5/4 with 16th notes in my world.

So the resulting accented rhythm is 5/4, but the quarter note is %20 faster than 
the original 4/4. Your 3/5 would be 3 beats of that 5/4. or 3/4 with 16th notes  
%20 faster than the original 4/4. Yes? Are we on the same page? That I can 
understand using, And it does suck that Logic can't do that without chaging 
tempo.

question #2: in a bar of 3/3 you'd have 3 quarter note triplets, right? In what 
way does that total not equal a bar of 2/4 with quarter note triplets? I can't see 
any valid reason to use that one. 

Similarly a bar of 5/5 would be the same a bar of 4/4 with every 4th quintuplet 
accented. Right? if the piece was soley in that time sig, wouldn't 5/4 be just as 
easy to write since you're accenting every 4th note anyway? The 4 accented 
quintuplets end up just being 4 16th notes in that scenario... right?

If you were cruising along in 4/4 and wanted to hear 5 notes evenly spaced 
across that bar, why write a 5/5 when you can keep the tempo the same by 
accenting every 4th quintuplet in a 4/4 bar?

Someone else (sorry I haven't been keeping track of who is talking about this) 
said 5/5 would be 5 beats dived into 5 parts each, instead of thinking of the 
bottom 5 number as 5 "quarter note quintuplets" he was thinking of them as 
actual quintuplets, or, not tuplets at all but a real denominator. That makes 
more sense to me but is not the same as what you are saying.  

so, to sum up... 3/5 I can get with if it's 3 groups of 4 quintuplets in a song 
based on a 16th note rhythm. There really is no other way to express that 
without changing tempo. If 3/5 being advocated as a time signature one would 
use to base an entire song on, I'd personally rather read 3/4 with 16th notes. If 
3/5 is what I thought it was a day ago according to the other guy, 3 beats 
divided by 5, or 15/16, I can get with that as a time signature to base a piece 
on.

oh, the inconsistencies...

Teddy Kumpel