Christopher Smith wrote: and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over > the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there > are only TWO notes in it) for clarity.
while i certainly agree with your post i think that tuplets are redundant here, as the /12 is meaning that already. i've used some fractionary time signatures like 2/3-over-quarter with an incomplete bracketed 3-tuplet, which is the same as 2/12. it worked really well. it took less than a minute to the performers to sort it out. it should be mentiones that those fractionary time signatures where in a context of pulse, all instruments playing staccato quarter notes. i've never tried with /12, though. marcelo > > > > There must be a good cause to write something that most accomplished > > musicians may have difficulty sight reading because of some obscure > > meter. > > > > Yes. One would only use it if it clarified the musical gesture. If I > could accomplish it with an ordinary metric modulation instead, I would > do it. > > But let's say again, in the same happily honking 4/4, that you are > constantly doing this odd-triplet thing, but at one point actually have > 4 pulses worth of triplets. Rather than switch back to 4/4 with tuplets > for one measure, I might be tempted to make that measure 12/12. "Might > be" is the operative word. 12/12 is not really in my vocabulary (12/8 > barely is!) and I would do my darndest to find a conventional solution > first. > > But that's how it would work. > > Christopher > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
