|
From: | Brett Duncan |
Subject: | Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question |
Date: | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:07:18 +1100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207) |
Rick Hansen (aka RickH) wrote:
David Rogers wrote:Orm Finnendahl wrote:Am 28. Dezember 2006, 11:30 Uhr (-0800) schrieb David Rogers:bf abf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { { { d16 ef f } { g a } } { bf32a c bf d cg f g ef } } The above would generate a parent tuplet with the number "5" and twosub-tuplets with "3" and "2", followed horizontally by the "12"tuplet. If you intend to think of tuplets as collections of notes of the same duration, the syntax is fine. But what happens, if the elements of the tuplet contain things of different durations (for example, the first part of your suggested tuplet is of an quarter duration and the second half containing the 12 32nds should last a dotted quarter within the parent "5" tuplet)?In the Beethoven example, Op.31 Nr.3 at bar 53, the 5-let is a quarter-note duration, and the 12-let is another quarter-note duration. But this was Rick Hansen's proposal, for how to solve a problem pointed out by David Fedoruk, and I was only admiring his solution. DavidWhen the notes in a bracket are of mixed durations then by default no digit would be generated only the bracket. If the user wanted a digit on a mixed-note tuplet they can add the "\tupletNbr x" indicator within that bracket of notes. As for summing the durations to match the parent stated "\tuplet x" duration... This would not happen, instead durations stated within a \tuplet structure would be there solely for the purpose of determining the STYLE of the noteheads being printed. IOW durations in a known-duration tuplet contruct would not participate in any further evaluation math-wise of expired time, just as a convenient way of setting the noteheads. Because the true duration of the whole construct has already been stated on the "\tuplet x" there is no need to validate further, the tuplets total duration is still whatever they coded it to be at the outset.
Hmm, I think I agree with Rick about the nested braces - that seems to be more "Lilypond-ish" than my original suggestion.
OTOH, I don't think the situation with mixed durations is really a problem. For example, \tuplet 4 {{ a4 b8 } { c16 b a b8. } { a16 b c b a }}(using nested brackets, as Rick suggested) should produce a 3 over the first and second bracket groups, and a 5 over the third, all based on the ratio of the cumulative duration of the notes within the brackets to the duration given after \tuplet. (For the first two groups, the ratio is 3:2, for the third group of notes, 5:4)
I think the digit on the tuplet bracket SHOULD be generated, regardless of what the notes and durations are within the tuplet. I don't like the idea that the user could put a number on the bracket that doesn't make sense musically - if you have a group of five notes in the time of four, then either a "5" should appear, or the ratio "5:4". The only exception I can see to this is to be able to suppress the number altogether for those situations where the pattern of tuplets is repeated through the piece (e.g. Schubert's Impromptu No. 3, Op. 90). So I don't think a \tupletNbr function is really necessary. But others may it differently to me.
My $0.02 (Australian, so worth even less!) Brett
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |