Re: tuplets

[Eyolf Østrem]

> On 9/26/07, Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > It's not nearly as slick as "tuplet"... but how about "rhythmic ratios"?
> > The phrase sums up almost precisely what it represents, and would be
> > (I imagine) VERY easily translated.

I think it's good -- only reservation is whether it is also
"intuitive", in both directions: will people know what it means when
they see it, and will they consider looking under that heading for
answers about sextuplets?

On 26.09.2007 (15:20), Trevor Bača wrote (about "irrational rhythm"):
> So, there's that. It's available. And although I don't personally like
> it because I think it's counter-descriptive, it will at least
> translate readily to those languages that simply cannot backform
> something like "tuplet".

I don't like it either. In any way. It may be that musicians would
find 17/11 an irrational rhythm, but what about a triplet, which would
also be an "irrational rhythm"? 
But thanks for bringing it up :-)
 
> FWIW, I would *much* prefer "tuplet" in our English docs; I would only
> propose "irrational rhythm" where the translators are coming up empty
> in the other languages.

FWIW (2), neither Grove nor Merriam-Webster have an entry on "tuplet"
at all. Nor do any of the other dictionaries or lexica I've checked. That, if
anything, for me is the strongest and perhaps only argument against
it: it doesn't seem to be an established term, other than in the
fairly small group of people who have once used Finale; and even there
it (a) invites a certain confusion with duplets, and (b) carries
connotations by assonance with the mathematical term tuple.

My gut reaction is that I dislike the term, even though I acknowledge
that it may be useful.

http://www.musictheory.halifax.ns.ca/19triplets.html has the heading:
Triplets and other "tuplets", and quotes the Concise Oxford dict. of
music, which uses the term irregular combinations [of notes]". Hm....


Eyolf

-- 
Ahead warp factor one, Mr. Sulu.