On Thursday 28 December 2006 11:13, Brett Duncan wrote: > Erik Sandberg wrote: > > On Monday 25 December 2006 06:32, David Fedoruk wrote: > >> Hello: > >> > >> I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to > >> look at this problem. The first is from a programmer's point of view > >> where the programmer is experienced with some computer languages, > >> these days its upper level languages more and more. For these people, > >> lilypond typesetting code feels comfortable when it is syntactically > >> correct and when it makes sense in either computer or mathematical > >> terms. A mathematical algorithm is what they are used to seeing. > >> > >> The other group has less mathematical knowledge, very little (very > >> little compared to a programmer working on a major project like > >> Lilypond) programming knowledge or experience. In all likelihood the > >> only thing that connects these people is the printed musical score. > >> > >> At least in part I think these points have already been made. The > >> question that occurs to me as a novice Lilypond user (and one who > >> jumps in the deep end with complex scores!) is this: How will you > >> deal with other types of prolongation or compression of notes into one > >> or more beats or where the composers intentions are clear but they are > >> not immediately mathematically correct? > >> > >> The example below is a single bar from a Beethoven Piano Sonata (Opus > >> 31 number 3, 1st mvt. bar 53) in which two more out of the ordinary > >> examples occur next to each other. You will excuse any mistakes in > >> coding here, this doesn't render as it should. > >> > >> upper = \relative c'' { > >> \clef treble > >> \key ef \major > >> \time 3 > >> > >> bf16[d f ef] \times 5/4 d16[ ef f g a] bf32[bf a c bf d c bf a g c g > >> ef] > >> > >> } > >> > >> You can see how there are three beams, one for the notes in eaech > >> beat. The first and second beat are quite clear, but the third one has > >> eluded me as yet. The score has 12 thirty-second notes beamed together > >> with "12" below the note heads. > >> > >> The printed score is clear to the performer. The Lilypond code I > >> suspect is far more complex. The only way that 12 thirty-second notes > >> will fit into one beat is if they are triplets, but in context, they > >> are not played or heard as triplets. > >> > >> My only comment in this discussion is that the Lilypond code to > >> represent this short passage should be as clear as the printed score I > >> am reading. > > > > try \times 8/12 { ... } > > > > (by default, this will probably display as 12:8 above the notes, which > > can be tweaked to just show 12) > > > > IMHO, this is an argument for a mathematical notation: You must know what > > you are doing to notate the music (i.e., multiplying durations with > > 8/12), just saying that a 12 should be displayed above would make it > > difficult to maintain the .ly code. > > Here's a different idea: instead of specifying the ratio for a tuplet or > set of tuplets, what about specifying the duration of a tuplet, and > letting LP determine what number appears over the beam? > > For example, where we now use > \times 2/3 { a8 b c } > to get a triplet of three quavers in the time of two, instead have > \tuplet 4 { a8 b c } > LP can calculate the ratio (and hence what should appear over the > tuplet) from the time given before the {...} and the cumulative time of > the notes inside the {...}. > > This would mean that users do not need to work out the ratio, they just > need to know how long the tuplet should last. Further to this idea would > be to allow an internal division inside the {...}, so that multiple > tuplets could be entered, maybe something like \tuplet 4 { a8 b c ! c4 > a8 ! b8 c4 }. (I've used ! only for explaining the idea - I'm NOT > advocating it as the desired syntax.) > > This would mean that for the Beethoven snippet in David Fedoruk's post, > instead of > > bf16[d, f ef] \times 4/5 {d16[ ef f g a]} \times 8/12 {bf32[a c bf d c > bf a g f g ef]} > > you would put > > bf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { d16 ef f g a ! bf32a c bf d c bf a g f g ef } > > > Just a thought!
Unfortunately, the number above does not always follow from the duration. E.g., the factors 2/3 and 4/6 are mathematically equal, but give different numbers. It is probably difficult to define when to use 4/6 and 2/3, respectively (e.g., I guess {c8[ c16 c c8]} could have either a 3 or a 6 above it, depending on context) -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user