Quintuplet, a correct one?

[Mr_Incognito]

A long time ago, about 20 years ago or so, I taught music theory in high school, and we used these Taylor-books.  I clearly remember using the reduction method for compound time signatures and beats.
Since there doesn't seem to be an exact, clear rule for these irregular tuplets, I'll stick with the reduction method.  But, as Taylor and Gould say, "do not mix the methods."

What do you mean with "compound time signatures"? Taylor talks about compound time values, i.e. note values.

The time signature determines how tuplet within the time value will be notated.

[Magnus Johansson]

A long time ago, about 20 years ago or so, I taught music theory in high school, and we used these Taylor-books.  I clearly remember using the reduction method for compound time signatures and beats.
Since there doesn't seem to be an exact, clear rule for these irregular tuplets, I'll stick with the reduction method.  But, as Taylor and Gould say, "do not mix the methods."

What do you mean with "compound time signatures"? Taylor talks about compound time values, i.e. note values.

The time signature determines how tuplet within the time value will be notated.

The question here was to Djuro, you have another question to answer, but where does Eric Taylor say something like you?

[OCTO]

What do you mean with "compound time signatures"? Taylor talks about compound time values, i.e. note values.

A compound time value is a note value that has been augmented by half of its original duration, usually by adding a dot.  In Messiaen it could be augmented by any other value (for instance by 1/16 of the value).  It is compound since it doesn't have binary augmentation, meaning compound of the original and an additional value.

Compound time signatures are meters in which each beat naturally divides into three equal subdivisions, rather than two.

The terminology exists because meter and time signature refer to related but different things:
  a) Meter = the underlying pattern of beats and subdivisions that you hear and feel.
  b) Time signature = the notation used to represent that meter on the page.

A simple time signature is ex. 4/4, on the contrary 8/8 can be both full simple, or compound, or mixed.

Likewise 6/8 can be understood as 3+3 (compound time signature) or 6 times 8 (simple time signature, conducted as six beats, and notated properly).

The unfortunate thing is that nineteenth-century theory used the word compound for both ideas, even though they refer to different levels of musical organization.  This is one reason why modern metric theory tends to speak more precisely about compound beat division (meter) and dotted note values (rhythm).

https://musictheory.pugetsound.edu/mt21c/meter.html

[Magnus Johansson]

What do you mean with "compound time signatures"? Taylor talks about compound time values, i.e. note values.

A compound time value is a note value that has been augmented by half of its original duration, usually by adding a dot.  In Messiaen it could be augmented by any other value (for instance by 1/16 of the value).  It is compound since it doesn't have binary augmentation, meaning compound of the original and an additional value.

I prefer to call it "note value" instead of "time value" to separate it from "time" in e.g. "4/4 time", but we agree on the concept.

Compound time signatures are meters in which each beat naturally divides into three equal subdivisions, rather than two.

The terminology exists because meter and time signature refer to related but different things:
  a) Meter = the underlying pattern of beats and subdivisions that you hear and feel.
  b) Time signature = the notation used to represent that meter on the page.

A simple time signature is ex. 4/4, on the contrary 8/8 can be both full simple, or compound, or mixed.

OK, so although 4/4 is a compound meter consisting of two duple meters (a duple meter being simple) its time signature is called simple.

Likewise 6/8 can be understood as 3+3 (compound time signature) or 6 times 8 (simple time signature, conducted as six beats, and notated properly).

OK. but are you not mixing meter categorization with time signature categorization here? To me 6/8 is a compound meter consisting of two triple meters regardless of how it is conducted.

[OCTO]

OK, so although 4/4 is a compound meter consisting of two duple meters (a duple meter being simple) its time signature is called simple.

4/4 consists of four simple beats, so it is a simple time signature.
What you think about two beats is probably 2/2.

To me 6/8 is a compound meter consisting of two triple meters regardless of how it is conducted.

Generally yes, but not necessarily.  If you want 6 equal beats in one measure, then it is conducted "at 6", generally in slow tempi.  In that case 6/8 should be notated as 6 separate notes, non beamed.  Of course, a conductor can decide what subdivision will be done.

[Magnus Johansson]

OK, so although 4/4 is a compound meter consisting of two duple meters (a duple meter being simple) its time signature is called simple.

4/4 consists of four simple beats, so it is a simple time signature.
What you think about two beats is probably 2/2.

OK, but how do you designate the meter 4/4? Is it a simple or compound meter or something else?

To me 6/8 is a compound meter consisting of two triple meters regardless of how it is conducted.

Generally yes, but not necessarily.  If you want 6 equal beats in one measure, then it is conducted "at 6", generally in slow tempi.  In that case 6/8 should be notated as 6 separate notes, non beamed.  Of course, a conductor can decide what subdivision will be done.

Do you mean that the equality of the beats in 6/8 is dependent on the tempo?

[Mr_Incognito]

In the time when traditional rules for notating tuplets were valid, 4/4 was considered exclusively simple, and 6/8 exclusively compound meter. In case there was a reason to conduct differently (hemiola, too slow tempo etc.), notation was not affected.

[Magnus Johansson]

In the time when traditional rules for notating tuplets were valid, [...]

What time was that? Before Brahms?

[Mr_Incognito]

In the time when traditional rules for notating tuplets were valid, [...]

What time was that? Before Brahms?

Roughly till Ravel.

[Magnus Johansson]

In the time when traditional rules for notating tuplets were valid, [...]

What time was that? Before Brahms?

Roughly till Ravel.

But as you perhaps noticed in Eric Taylor's music examples Brahms used the surplus method even for duplets on a dotted note value.