N. Andrew Walsh mentioned: > Maybe I'm misunderstanding mclaren's example, but the graphic he posted > has > a number of notational errors. To wit:
> in the third voice, if the meter is 11/8, then an 11:9 tuplet will not > fill > the bar, as it will only cover 9 eighth-notes. Perhaps he meant 9:11, in > which case the meter needs to change to 9/8. Or the tuplet marking is > superfluous. No, that's what I want -- 8 eighth notes in one measure, then 9 eighth notes in the next measure, then 8, then 9. This forces the notes in the third staff to line up with the downbeats in each measure in the second staff, but not with the downbeats in each measure in the first staff. You're right of course that we could equally well notate this using separate tempo streams, but conventional Western notation has no method for notating multiple simultaneous metronome markings. To be even more perverse, we could just as well notate e.g. a stream of half notes against a stream of eighth notes by writing both as streams of eighth notes and marking tempo mm = 120 on the stream of eighth notes and tempo mm = 30 on the stream that's going to be heard as half notes, but, really...that would be so obscure it seems cryptic. I'm going to post an example where that multiple simultaneous tempi method might be the only solution. This next one, I'm at my wit's end on... -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-tricky-example-polyMETER-against-polyRHYTHM-tp196030p196091.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
