Peter, My "strange" example of tuplets using neither "Math Rule" nor "Nearness
Rule" will be clarified if I show the context. Here is that context from a
part of the piece I wrote for solo bassoon:
\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
\score {
\relative c' {
\partial 4
\clef "bass"
\key af \major
c,,8( { \tuplet 5/2 { g'16 c ef g c) } }
|
ef4\fermata
\tuplet 3/2 { df8 ef df }
\tuplet 3/2 { c df c }
\afterGrace bf4 \startTrillSpan { a32 bf \stopTrillSpan }
|
af,8-.[ c'-.
bf-. g,-.]
f-.[ af'-.
g-. ef,-.]
|
df8( { \tuplet 7/2 { f16 bf df f bf df f~) } }
f4~\fermata
\tuplet 3/2 { f8 ef( f }
\tuplet 3/2 { g16[ af g } f16 g])
|
} %relative
\layout { }
\midi { }
} %score
My point is that in this context, the 5/2 and 7/2 tuplets seem more elegant
than if you followed the "Math Rule" using 5/4 and 7/4, and that the player
would not be confused when playing the score. These two tuplets are the only
ones in this section and the triple beams (required by "Math Rule") look rather
messy by comparison. Even messier is the "Nearness Rule" giving 7/8 for the
septuplet with a quaduple beam.
In fact, a music jock college friend at the time (36 years ago) recopied my
"chicken scratches" of the autograph and used precisely the 5/2 and 7/2
notation for the quintuplet and septuplet---I didn't even notice when I was
engraving the LilyPond version from his hand-written score. It was only later
that I realized that the 5/2 and 7/2 tuplets did not follow the "Math Rule."
Food for thought.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Bjuhr
To: Simon Albrecht ; Ralph D. Jeffords ; lilypond-user
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Implementation of \tuplet allow both incorrect and correct
musical expressions
On 2015-03-26 10:53, Simon Albrecht wrote:
The essay
on writing readable tuplets was quite interesting.
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?
Even before I read the essay I had some second thoughts that \tuplet 7/4 {
c16 ... } might be clearer to the player if annotated as \tuplet 7/8 { c32
... } since 7 is closer to 8 than to 4 (i.e., I anticipated the "Nearness
Rule").
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:"
{ c,,8( \tuplet 5/2 { g'16 c ef g c ) } }
{ df8( \tuplet 7/2 { f16 bf df f bf df f~) } }
So definitely there is a need for flexibility in using tuplets.
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.
I am definitely impressed with LilyPond's capabilities and the input
language (I was a heavy user of LaTeX in my life before retirement, so I am a
fan of WYSIWYM tools).
Sincerely,
Ralph D. Jeffords
P.S. A bit about myself: I was a Research Computer Scientist before I
retired, but I'm also a bassoonist and even play the piano a bit (my mother was
a piano teacher).
Best
Peter
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
