Re: different rhythmic units for tuplet's numerator and denominator

[James E. Bailey]

Am 07.07.2008 um 22:14 schrieb Uri Sala:

> It is a bit more convoluted than that. I will try to make myself  
> clearer:
> I want to write 3 against 5. In this case, since 3 is smaller than  
> 5, it has to use a rhythmic unit twice longer than the unit  
> associated with 5. Let's be over-explicit and call this "3 equally  
> spaced attacks within the duration of 5 sixteenth-notes." Well, I  
> will argue against most people and most notation manuals and most  
> modern scores that the only correct way to notate this is 3 eight- 
> notes against 5 sixteenth notes. Now, neither sibelius nor ENP nor  
> finale allow me to do this, since they force upon the editor the  
> assumed notion that nominator and denominator in a tuplet use the  
> same rhythmic value. This axioma makes it impossible to correctly  
> notate all possible complex tuplets (with non-binary denominators),  
> and makes the construction of an algorithm that translates  
> proportional notation (a la ENP) into lilypond code incredibly  
> convoluted. I thought lilypond was different - in that I could  
> stipulate different values for nom and denom - but I am not sure now.
>
> Many people would argue that you can use the same value for both,  
> since 3 is so close to 5. But that makes your run into a  
> contradiction. The only way one can stipulate a general and  
> infallible rule for writing tuplets is that a tuplet is the  
> insertion of a certain number of rhythmic values into a space that  
> is smaller. Or, to put it another way, a tuplet - a correct one - is  
> a compression of the duration of a rhythmic value. Very easy to  
> prove: how would you write 6 against 5 sixteenths? Well, just like  
> that. (times 5/6 {c16 c c c c c}. So, if we write 3 against 5, the  
> value that those three notes take should be 8th notes, because all  
> we would have to do is aggregate each 2 sixteenths of the 6:5 into  
> eighth notes. But remember, I want still a total duration of 5  
> 16ths!! So writing times 5/3 {c8 c c} will result in a tuplet twice  
> as long in duration than what I want, since lily thinks that I want  
> the duration to be 5 eighth notes. I have to be able to tell  
> lilypond that I want 3 eighth notes in the space of 5 sixteenth  
> notes (and that is just one of many examples. Trying to to 3 against  
> 7 is even more complicated since the duration is more than twice the  
> attack. In 3 against 7, the three should be notated with quarter  
> notes!). Hope I made myself understood now.
> I hope this does not turn into a discussion of the way to notate  
> tuplets, since there is only one that is actually inequivocal and  
> consistent. Unfortunately no editor allows one to produce it, which  
> is a very disturbing fact.
> Could lilypond be the one?
>
> cheers
> uri

\version "2.11.50"
\relative {
   \time 5/16
   c16 d e f g
   \times 5/6 {a8 f d}
}