|
From: | Peter Bjuhr |
Subject: | Re: Implementation of \tuplet allow both incorrect and correct musical expressions |
Date: | Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:40:54 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 |
On 2015-03-26 10:53, Simon Albrecht
wrote:
The essay From the context I assume you're referring to my post about tuplets on the LilyPond blog: http://lilypondblog.org/2014/09/how-to-write-readable-tuplets/. I'm really glad you found it interesting! The documentation mentions nothing about the intricacies of using tuplets---why isn't there a link to this article from the section 2.1.7 of the Learning Manual where tuplets are first discussed? I also found that certain arpeggios which appeared in a bassoon composition of mine ( I just downloaded LilyPond about 10 days ago, knowing nothing about it before, and learned enough of the basics to engrave that composition) Welcome as a LilyPond user! [The arpeggios] seem easier to read if the notes are nominal 16ths rather than following the "Mathematical Rule:" My main point in the text is that the flexibility of LilyPond has to be used with care not to make the tuplets unnecessarily obscure. Your example above seems strange to me. Compare this: { c,,8( \tuplet 5/2 { g'16 c ef g c ) } c8 d2 s8 }
{ df8( \tuplet 7/2 { f16 bf df f bf df f~) } f8 d2
s8 } with this: { c,,8( \tuplet 5/4 { g'16 c ef g c ) } c8 d2 }
{ df8( \tuplet 7/4 { f16 bf df f bf df f~) } f8 d2 } When placing five (5) and seven (7) 16ths over two (2) 16ths it seems to me that you end up with an excessive 8th compared to what one expects from reading the notation.
Best Peter |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |