The Logic Off Topic list

Hi there.
> 
> 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.

Could you point them out? It is just simple maths.
And i did not invent this, it is an agreed classical practice, although rare.

> But some of your points are valid.
> 
> question #1: for you, what is a quarter note quintuplet?

A breve divided by 5.  Ie a note equal to the length of a fith of a breve, in the same 
way a quarter note is equal to a fourth of a breve.

> When you say that, I take my bar of 4/4 and divide each beat by 5 giving me 
> 16th note quintuplets.

No not saying that at all. 
 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.

You got it. Cut the bar after the fourth quarter quintuplet and you get your 4/5. As 
you can see it is far neater to just use an odd time signature rather than write out all 
those subdivisions and ratios. Gets worse if you want 11 9 or 7.

> 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?

Correct,there would be little ppoint in writing a piece that never changed from 5/5 3/
3 etc. The use is in the moving from one to the other

> 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?  

Thats the whole point, we dont want the tempo to stay the same. If we did we just put 
a 5.4 ratio bracket and use normal quintuplets. 
 
> 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.  
> 

Nope.

> so, to sum up... 3/5 I can get with if it's 3 groups of 4 quintuplets

NO!   

3/5 is a bar equal to the length of 3 quarter note quintuplets!What you put in that bar 
is up to you. In the same way 4/4 is a bar equal to the length of 4 normal quarter 
notes. We are talking bars and pulse here......

> in a song 
> based on a 16th note rhythm. There really is no other way to express that 
> without changing tempo. 

Reverse your thinking, we want to change the tempo! The16th note rhythm is 
therefore irrelevant


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