lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

"\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)


From: Valentin Villenave
Subject: "\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:57:05 +0100

Hi everybody,

I'm not trying here to "feed the troll", but however I'd like to try
to add my two cents in this discussion.
Just a brief foreword: tuplets are very, _very_ useful to many
contemporary composers nowadays, as far as it gives them the ability
to write complex rhythms and patterns without having to use weird time
signatures. In a word, tuplet-based music is way more musician- and
reader-friendy, without getting too simple. (I think about Ligeti, for
instance.)
The point is, as a composer, I use throughout the music I write, many
tuplet-based patterns, in almost every bar.
Typing, each time, "\times 3/2" and so on, is not very pleasant (well,
it doesn't kill me, but typesetting everything else is so fast that I
find this precise sequence very slowing down).
I totally agree with the proposition that was made to use \tuplet
instead of \times, but I'd like to propose something more audacious
and more ambitious:

How about:

"Tuplets are made with the minimalistic \t keyword".

"If you do not specify a tuplet argument, the argument last entered is
used for the next tuplet. The argument of the first tuplet in input
defaults to 2/3."

Example:

\t 2/3 { f8 g a }
\t { c r c }

This way, entering tuplets gets as simple as entering pitches and
basic durations.
(I like this idea, but since it has come to me last night at 4 a.m.,
maybe it isn't _that_ good...)

Greetings,
V. Villenave.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]