Rick Hansen (aka RickH) wrote:
David Rogers wrote:
Orm Finnendahl wrote:
Am 28. Dezember 2006, 11:30 Uhr (-0800) schrieb David Rogers:
bf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { { { d16 ef f } { g a } } { bf32a c bf d c
bf a
g f
g ef } }
The above would generate a parent tuplet with the number "5" and two
sub-tuplets with "3" and "2", followed horizontally by the "12"
tuplet.
If you intend to think of tuplets as collections of notes of the same
duration, the syntax is fine. But what happens, if the elements of the
tuplet contain things of different durations (for example, the first
part of your suggested tuplet is of an quarter duration and the second
half containing the 12 32nds should last a dotted quarter within the
parent "5" tuplet)?
In the Beethoven example, Op.31 Nr.3 at bar 53, the 5-let is a
quarter-note duration, and the 12-let is another quarter-note duration.
But this was Rick Hansen's proposal, for how to solve a problem pointed
out by David Fedoruk, and I was only admiring his solution.
David
When the notes in a bracket are of mixed durations then by default no digit
would be generated only the bracket. If the user wanted a digit on a
mixed-note tuplet they can add the "\tupletNbr x" indicator within that
bracket of notes.
As for summing the durations to match the parent stated "\tuplet x"
duration... This would not happen, instead durations stated within a
\tuplet structure would be there solely for the purpose of determining the
STYLE of the noteheads being printed. IOW durations in a known-duration
tuplet contruct would not participate in any further evaluation math-wise of
expired time, just as a convenient way of setting the noteheads. Because
the true duration of the whole construct has already been stated on the
"\tuplet x" there is no need to validate further, the tuplets total duration
is still whatever they coded it to be at the outset.
Hmm, I think I agree with Rick about the nested braces - that seems to
be more "Lilypond-ish" than my original suggestion.
OTOH, I don't think the situation with mixed durations is really a problem.
For example,
\tuplet 4 {{ a4 b8 } { c16 b a b8. } { a16 b c b a }}
(using nested brackets, as Rick suggested) should produce a 3 over the
first and second bracket groups, and a 5 over the third, all based on
the ratio of the cumulative duration of the notes within the brackets to
the duration given after \tuplet. (For the first two groups, the ratio
is 3:2, for the third group of notes, 5:4)
I think the digit on the tuplet bracket SHOULD be generated, regardless
of what the notes and durations are within the tuplet. I don't like the
idea that the user could put a number on the bracket that doesn't make
sense musically - if you have a group of five notes in the time of four,
then either a "5" should appear, or the ratio "5:4". The only exception
I can see to this is to be able to suppress the number altogether for
those situations where the pattern of tuplets is repeated through the
piece (e.g. Schubert's Impromptu No. 3, Op. 90). So I don't think a
\tupletNbr function is really necessary. But others may it differently
to me.
My $0.02 (Australian, so worth even less!)
Brett
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
