Re: [talk] easy tuplets
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On 27 sept. 2012, at 19:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 25/09/12 18:03, James wrote:
PAH!
I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast
If you mean Mike Solomon then yes, his scores engraved with Lilypond
are mightily impressive. :-)
... but for the problem at hand -- in the scores I've seen, he
doesn't use the complex nested tuplets or so-called irrational (*)
time signatures that Ferneyhough does.
(* Very odd use of the term irrational, because actually these
time signatures involve a perfectly rational division of the bar.
So far I've never a time signature like pi/4 ...:-)
From my Suite Post Algorithmica.
Cheers,
MS
\version 2.14.0
\paper { ragged-last-bottom = ##f }
\header { title = Trees and nests tagline=}
[...]
This score benefits a _lot_ from placing the following from
URL:http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-09/msg00419.html
in your layout block:
\context {
\Voice
\consists
#(make-engraver
(acknowledgers
((note-head-interface engraver grob source)
(let* ((now (ly:moment-main
(ly:context-property
(ly:translator-context engraver)
'measurePosition 0)))
(g (ly:engraver-make-grob engraver 'TextScript grob)))
(ly:grob-set-property! g 'text
#{ \markup \fontsize #-3 #(format #f ~a now)
#})
}
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:51:43 -0700, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote: 2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com: Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code. Another advantage is code readability and ease of copying it (shall i elaborate?) Besides, it's not like we would loose any functionality: \times would still be there. This convinces me. I'm for it. I'll be against it. I make typos of c3 or c5 when I want to type c4 Let the algorithmic composers write c4*4/5 Let the humans use \tuplet as proposed years ago, http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2006-12/msg00489.html and which is easy to implement (attached) now that David has added the infrastructure to write music-functions that take fractions, and optional arguments (although I'm not sure if the optional argument is wise in this case). tuplet.ly Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes: On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:51:43 -0700, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote: 2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com: Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code. Another advantage is code readability and ease of copying it (shall i elaborate?) Besides, it's not like we would loose any functionality: \times would still be there. This convinces me. I'm for it. I'll be against it. I make typos of c3 or c5 when I want to type c4 One thing that I find bad about it is that we lose a straightforward relation between input and output. Our durations are composed of log2, dots, and scale factor. We then get a mushy duration is the following rational, can I have tuplet brackets with that somehow? instead. Why is there no notation for \times 2/3 c1 ? Let the humans use \tuplet as proposed years ago, http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2006-12/msg00489.html and which is easy to implement (attached) now that David has added the infrastructure to write music-functions that take fractions, and optional arguments (although I'm not sure if the optional argument is wise in this case). Well, music argument after left-out optional argument at the current point of time means closed music. It is likely a safe bet that we rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem, and I am chugging away at getting the closed music thing scrapped, but that's still a month left at least. What possibly would make sense as an optional argument would be a setting for tupletSpannerDuration. I am not sure about it, though, since one would usually want the same duration for a number of calls. While we still have the [talk] tag, we could use the name \tup-let for a version automatically using baseMoment for tupletSpannerDuration, and \tuplet for no subdivision. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Well, music argument after left-out optional argument at the current point of time means closed music. It is likely a safe bet that we rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem, and I am chugging away at getting the closed music thing scrapped, but that's still a month left at least. does a tremolo count as single note (see the Debussy examples earlier)? p ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes: Well, music argument after left-out optional argument at the current point of time means closed music. It is likely a safe bet that we rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem, and I am chugging away at getting the closed music thing scrapped, but that's still a month left at least. does a tremolo count as single note (see the Debussy examples earlier)? Pretty sure it counts as non-closed music unless enclosed in curly brackets. But I don't think we should spend too much effort on designing interfaces around this current restriction. I do not intend to keep it. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Hi Joseph,
On 25/09/12 16:43, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 24/09/12 18:27, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not
talk about 12th notes to other musicians.
That's not entirely true. Contemporary composers (I think Ferneyhough
started it, others have continued it) have used time signatures like
x/10, x/6, etc. (which Lilypond already supports) where the base unit is
a quintuplet-eighth, a triplet-quarter, etc.
(There are earlier examples of equivalent time signatures, e.g. in
Boulez, but they don't use the simple ratio -- Boulez writes things like
(4 + 2/3)/4 where Ferneyhough would have written 7/6.)
Given such a musical context, it may make more sense to write,
\time 4/10
c'10 \times 2/3 { c'10 c' c' } c'20 c'
than,
\time 4/10
\times 4/5 { c'8 \times 2/3 { c'8 c' c' } c'16 c' }
You're getting into an edge-case here as far as more bread-and-butter
typesetting is concerned. (Mike S's is maybe way out over the edge :-) .)
It's slightly off-topic from Graham's original proposition in the thread
base-message, which was restricted to multiple-of-two/multiples-of three
type duplets. This part of the thread has strayed beyond extra valid
values for durations, and we've strayed into time-signatures-as-tuplets
territory.
However what you say here is good information and shouldn't get lost.
Maybe you should repost this as a separate [talk] thread, with a more
descriptive title?
Cheers,
Ian
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 25/09/12 18:03, James wrote: PAH! I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast If you mean Mike Solomon then yes, his scores engraved with Lilypond are mightily impressive. :-) ... but for the problem at hand -- in the scores I've seen, he doesn't use the complex nested tuplets or so-called irrational (*) time signatures that Ferneyhough does. (* Very odd use of the term irrational, because actually these time signatures involve a perfectly rational division of the bar. So far I've never a time signature like pi/4 ...:-) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 27/09/12 19:15, Ian Hulin wrote: It's slightly off-topic from Graham's original proposition in the thread base-message, which was restricted to multiple-of-two/multiples-of three type duplets. This part of the thread has strayed beyond extra valid values for durations, and we've strayed into time-signatures-as-tuplets territory. However what you say here is good information and shouldn't get lost. Maybe you should repost this as a separate [talk] thread, with a more descriptive title? I did already post somewhat on this earlier in the GLISS discussions, but more in regard of the time signatures involved than of note-length indications: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-07/msg00924.html Anyway, I can certainly write all this up in a more formal way. In all honesty I'm not overly bothered if note-lengths like 6, 10, 12, 20, ... get permitted in Lilypond, but if it's introduced for some tuplet cases, it might as well go all the way. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 27/09/12 21:06, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote: From my Suite Post Algorithmica. I stand corrected, and rather amused :-) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 24/09/12 18:27, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not
talk about 12th notes to other musicians.
That's not entirely true. Contemporary composers (I think Ferneyhough started
it, others have continued it) have used time signatures like x/10, x/6, etc.
(which Lilypond already supports) where the base unit is a quintuplet-eighth, a
triplet-quarter, etc.
(There are earlier examples of equivalent time signatures, e.g. in Boulez, but
they don't use the simple ratio -- Boulez writes things like (4 + 2/3)/4 where
Ferneyhough would have written 7/6.)
Given such a musical context, it may make more sense to write,
\time 4/10
c'10 \times 2/3 { c'10 c' c' } c'20 c'
than,
\time 4/10
\times 4/5 { c'8 \times 2/3 { c'8 c' c' } c'16 c' }
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 25/09/12 06:48, Keith OHara wrote: Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-notes, 9th notes, etc. http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?searchingfor=debussy If nested tuplets are your intended testing ground, try engraving Ferneyhough. All else is playground stuff. :-) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 25 September 2012 16:49, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On 25/09/12 06:48, Keith OHara wrote: Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-notes, 9th notes, etc. http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?searchingfor=debussy If nested tuplets are your intended testing ground, try engraving Ferneyhough. All else is playground stuff. :-) For those too lazy to look an example up http://broadbandnoise.wordpress.com/tag/new-complexity/ PAH! I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast ;) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 23/09/12 22:45, Graham Percival wrote:
This is an informal chat idea, following David's latest suggestion
that such emails could go on -devel instead of requiring a separate
mailing list. I fully expect this not to work.
But let's give it a go anyway.
I have a few concerns, but these are mostly semantic i.e. what is
this in terms of what we are trying to express in the language.
Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots). Making
a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ... } or a *x/y scaling
factor. We could avoid this (in common cases) by allowing
arbitrary integer durations.
c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g } into: c4 e c6 e g
The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in
addition to the current 1 2 4 8 we have 3 = \times 2/3 { c2 }
(whole note divided by 3) 6 = \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note
divided by 6) ... etc.
You need at least three in your new series to make it unambiguous
12 = \times 2/3 { c8 }(whole note divided by 12)
These notes can be grouped together like we do for beaming, and
produce tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming rules.
Advantages:
1. Quicker note entry for triplet quaver and crotchet groups.
2. It is considerably less opaque and cryptic-looking than the other
alternative to \times 2/3 { ... }
c8*2/3 c c .
Drawbacks:
1. The current wordy syntax is explicit. You specify the ratio of
notes contained in the tuplet as a / b where the fraction determines
how many written notes (fraction denominator) are written in the time
of how many 'real' notes in the current time signature. This change
only accommodates triplets.
2. The current syntax is delimited. You specify exactly how many notes
are to form the tuplet by enclosing them in sequential music
delimiters '{' and '}'. The proposed syntax does not explicitly
indicate where the 'tupleted' notes begin and end.
3. The proposition may not explicitly address the commonest triplet group
\times 2/3 {c8 c c}, would it cater for this as c12 c c ?
4. Other common tuplets are not handled by this proposition (e.g.
\times 4/5 { ... } - obvious, but needs stating).
5. How do these 'implicit triplet' durations interact with \times,
e.g. when they are nested as in the N.R. 1.2.1 example 2:
\autobeamOff
c4 \times 4/5 { f8 e f e6[ f g] } f4
6. How do we make it clear to new users that 'c6' is different from
'c4.'? After all, the duration of the note is the same as our
durations are an implicit 1/n (i.e. c4 = c with 1/4 note duration),
and the . means 150% of 1/n.
7. Are the new triplet duration-lengths consistent, extensible and
easily explicable to new LilyPond users in the LR? I suspect the
answer to this is yes as we only support powers of two (2, 4, 8 ...)
to represent durations now, and I presume we would also have a
parallel 'triplet' series (2*1.5, 4*1.5, 8*1.5 ... ) to represent the
'tripleted' durations.
Opportunities:
1. Implement as a \triplet music function to give
triplet = (define-music-function
(parser location tuplet-music) (ly:music)
#{ \times 2/3 $tuplet-music }#
\triplet {c2 c c} ; (for c3 c c in the proposition) or
\triplet {c4 c c} ; (for c6 c c in the proposition) and
\triplet {c8 c c} ; (not mentioned explicitly in the proposition)
Threats:
1. Is LilyPond's conception of note duration extensible enough to cope
with the new note lengths?
2. Interaction with beaming and auto-beaming, are we going to generate
a whole slew of properties needing to bet \overridden or \set in order
to control how the implicit tuplet notes are beamed?
I know that this idea has been floated at least twice in the past
ten years, but since this is only a [talk] idea, I'm not going to
bother looking up those discussions in the archives. Remember that
you're not allowed to call me a lazy idiot for not looking up those
discussions because this isn't a formal proposal. This email
thread should have the casual atmosphere of a friendly discussion
at a pub or coffee house, and that nobody will complain about
technically infeasible ideas, wasting developer’s time, having to
defend the parser, or anything like that.
- Graham
I think we have potentially two propositions which could emerge from
this. Both of these can co-exist together.
1. Provide a triplet shorthand - discussion point, do we add a whole
slew of new duration values for users to learn which are relevant to
triplets, but which can save them some typing, or do we add a \triplet
command?
2. Make the \times command more musician-friendly and less of a
potential confusion with \time. Potentially replace with a \tuplet
command
e.g.
\times 2/3 {c8 c8 c8] becomes
\tuplet 3/2 {c8 c8 c8} % because musicians think of the tuplet as
% three-eighth-notes-in-the-time-of-two.
or
\tuplet 2/3 {c8 c8 c8} % if we want to preserve 'this is a better
% way of writing c8*2/3 c c'
Hope this hasn't torpedoed your trial, Graham.
Cheers,
Ian
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk writes:
Advantages:
1. Quicker note entry for triplet quaver and crotchet groups.
2. It is considerably less opaque and cryptic-looking than the other
alternative to \times 2/3 { ... }
c8*2/3 c c .
Drawbacks:
The main drawback I see is that the specification is in lowest terms.
It would be a full nuisance to have tuplets oscillating between 15th,
5th, and 3rd tuplets depending on their distribution. Sixtuplets are
plain out, it is not clear why and when duols will be notated with dots
and when not, and the subdivision to pick for duols/quartols is totally
unclear as it competes with normal note lengths.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Hi all,
First thing that i'd like to say about Graham's proposal is that
supporting arbitrary integer durations doesn't mean we have to abolish
\times (or \tuplet, if we decide to rename it).
I imagine that we could have arbitrary integer durations intended for
use with straightforward tuplets, while continue using explicit \times
command for complicated (for example nested) ones.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
These notes can be grouped together like we do for beaming, and
produce tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming rules.
I don't think we have tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming
rules.
LilyPond doesn't know about any tuplet beaming rules, but i think
Graham meant general music notation tuplet rules. Like the ones that
can be found in Elaine Gould's Behind Bars.
And by the way, look at the output of this:
{
\times 2/3 { b8 }
\times 2/3 { b8 }
\times 2/3 { b8 }
\times 2/3 { b8 }
\times 2/3 { b8 }
\times 2/3 { b8 }
r2
}
Interesting - i mean, TupletNumbers are all wrong, but the beaming is correct.
As for dividing tuplets here
\times 2/3 { c8 c c c c c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c c c c c }
we can use tupletSpannerDuration. We could have it calculated from
time signature or something like that.
the casual atmosphere of a friendly
discussion at a pub or coffee house
Would you be rather thinking of a Scottish or a Canadian pub here?
what's the difference?
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
Rhythms often repeat, and I think everyone omits the tuplet number after
the second repeat or so. Then
{\times2/3 {g8 c' es'} \times2/3 {g8 c' es'} g8*2/3 c' es' g c' es'}
would be
{g12 c' es' g c' es' g8*2/3 c' es' g c' es'}
placing brackets every three 12-th notes by following automatic beaming.
It might be more clear to have the *x/y get the tuplet brackets,
{g8*2/3 c' es' g c' es' g12 c' es' g c' es'}
placing brackets every three 2/3rd 8-th notes because y=3.
Interesting. Apart from which one would produce tuplet brackets,
maybe *x/y notation would allow us to distinguish between
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
and
\times 4/6 { b16 b b b b b }
by writing { b16*2/3 b b b b b } and { b16*4/6 b b b b b }, respectively?
b12 is still more brief, though.
As for \times 2/3 {c8. c16}, {c12. c24} seems clear enough from my
perspective. No idea whether computers will like it, though :)
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Interesting. Apart from which one would produce tuplet brackets,
maybe *x/y notation would allow us to distinguish between
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
and
\times 4/6 { b16 b b b b b }
by writing { b16*2/3 b b b b b } and { b16*4/6 b b b b b },
respectively?
No, it happens that the scale factor of durations is indeed a scalar
rational rather than an integer pair, so the latter two are
indistinguishable.
b12 is still more brief, though.
As for \times 2/3 {c8. c16}, {c12. c24} seems clear enough from my
perspective. No idea whether computers will like it, though :)
I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not
talk about 12th notes to other musicians.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:27 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Interesting. Apart from which one would produce tuplet brackets,
maybe *x/y notation would allow us to distinguish between
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
and
\times 4/6 { b16 b b b b b }
by writing { b16*2/3 b b b b b } and { b16*4/6 b b b b b },
respectively?
No, it happens that the scale factor of durations is indeed a scalar
rational rather than an integer pair, so the latter two are
indistinguishable.
would it be feasible to remake it into an integer pair, so that these
two could be distinguished?
b12 is still more brief, though.
As for \times 2/3 {c8. c16}, {c12. c24} seems clear enough from my
perspective. No idea whether computers will like it, though :)
I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not
talk about 12th notes to other musicians.
Only because we're not used to this convention - who knows what will
happen when LilyPond will rule the world of music engraving? Maybe
everyone will talk about 12th notes then?
Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for
algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code.
Another advantage is code readability and ease of copying it (shall i
elaborate?)
Besides, it's not like we would loose any functionality: \times would
still be there.
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com: Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code. Another advantage is code readability and ease of copying it (shall i elaborate?) Besides, it's not like we would loose any functionality: \times would still be there. This convinces me. I'm for it. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:40:50 -0700, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I imagine that we could have arbitrary integer durations intended for
use with straightforward tuplets, while continue using explicit \times
command for complicated (for example nested) ones.
Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-notes, 9th notes, etc.
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?searchingfor=debussy
And by the way, look at the output of this:
\times 2/3 { b8 }
\times 2/3 { b8 }
We sometimes need numbers on each stem, for example tremolos c6.:12
As for dividing tuplets here
\times 2/3 { c8 c c c c c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c c c c c }
we can use tupletSpannerDuration. We could have it calculated from
time signature or something like that.
The auto-beaming code beams triplet rhythms correctly, with rare exceptions,
when they are written out
{ c8*2/3 c c c c c c c c c c c
c c c c c c c c c c c c }
the casual atmosphere of a friendly
discussion at a pub or coffee house
Would you be rather thinking of a Scottish or a Canadian pub here?
what's the difference?
Canadians are known for being exceptionally polite.
attachment: tuplets.png___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes: This is an informal chat idea, following David's latest suggestion that such emails could go on -devel instead of requiring a separate mailing list. I fully expect this not to work. Please keep [talk] threads free from disparaging comments. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots).
Making a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ... } or a *x/y
scaling factor. We could avoid this (in common cases) by allowing
arbitrary integer durations.
c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g }
into:
c4 e c6 e g
The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in
addition to the current
1 2 4 8
we have
3 = \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3)
6 = \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note divided by 6)
... etc.
These notes can be grouped together like we do for beaming, and
produce tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming rules.
I don't think we have tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming
rules.
Take a look at
\times 2/3 { c8 c c c c c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c c c c c }
I know that this idea has been floated at least twice in the past
ten years, but since this is only a [talk] idea, I'm not going to
bother looking up those discussions in the archives. Remember
that you're not allowed to call me a lazy idiot for not looking up
those discussions because this isn't a formal proposal. This
email thread should have the casual atmosphere of a friendly
discussion at a pub or coffee house, and that nobody will
complain about technically infeasible ideas, wasting developer’s
time, having to defend the parser, or anything like that.
Would you be rather thinking of a Scottish or a Canadian pub here?
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
2012/9/23 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in
addition to the current
1 2 4 8
we have
3 = \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3)
6 = \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note divided by 6)
... etc.
Looks good but would it make easy to distinguish between
{
%accent every 3
% I call it a double triplet
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
\times 2/3 { b16 b b }
%accent every 2
% I call it a sextuplet
\times 4/6 { b16 b b b b b }
r2
}
?
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
On 9/23/12 4:48 PM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote:
2012/9/23 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in
addition to the current
1 2 4 8
we have
3 = \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3)
6 = \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note divided by 6)
... etc.
How would you do
\times 2/3 { c8. c16} ?
In working on beaming, I came to appreciate the \times 2/3 syntax. It
seemed awkard at first, but I think it's right.
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes:
On 9/23/12 4:48 PM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote:
2012/9/23 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in
addition to the current
1 2 4 8
we have
3 = \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3)
6 = \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note divided by 6)
... etc.
How would you do
\times 2/3 { c8. c16} ?
In working on beaming, I came to appreciate the \times 2/3 syntax. It
seemed awkard at first, but I think it's right.
It _is_ a bit tiresome in its single-mindedness when looking at
\times 2/3 { c8 c c c c c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c c c c c }
I don't know whether it is feasible to always subdivide this
automatically as it may interfere with the intention of the composer,
but maybe one could allow manual subdivision with
\times 2/3 { c8 c c \\ c c c \\ c c c \\ c c c \\
c8 c c \\ c c c \\ c c c \\ c c c }
I think it should be reasonably safe to abuse the voice separator here
as long as it is not occuring in simultaneous music. Of course, it is
easy to make LilyPond understand this input, but making other tools
aware of this new feature would be more work.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Hi all,
just a quick note before i go to sleep:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
[...] allow arbitrary integer durations.
c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g }
into:
c4 e c6 e g
I had this idea in my head for two years, and it was the subject of
the second email i've sent to the Lily mailing list! :)
I have recently read Elaine Gould's instructions on tuplet notation,
and it seems that tuplet rules are consistent enough to make this idea
feasible. I will follow with more details tomorrow.
Guys, am i excited now!
:D
good night! :D
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Hi all,
just a quick note before i go to sleep:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
[...] allow arbitrary integer durations.
c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g }
into:
c4 e c6 e g
I had this idea in my head for two years, and it was the subject of
the second email i've sent to the Lily mailing list! :)
I have recently read Elaine Gould's instructions on tuplet notation,
and it seems that tuplet rules are consistent enough to make this idea
feasible.
It does not appear to me like this notation would be able to express the
difference between \times 4/6 and \times 2/3 which is similar to the
difference between \time 3/4 and \time 6/8, respectively.
It also fails my notation should be similar to how one would spell
music on the phone criterion: I've never heard somebody talking about
sixth notes as opposed to eighth notes (German duration names are
based on 2^k fractions rather than the more colorful semidemiquaver
nomenclature). I agree that \times 2/3 on every single tuplet bracket
is tiresome.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] easy tuplets
Graham Percival graham at percival-music.ca writes:
Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots).
Making a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ... } or a *x/y
scaling factor. We could avoid this (in common cases) by allowing
arbitrary integer durations.
c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g }
into:
c4 e c6 e g
Rhythms often repeat, and I think everyone omits the tuplet number after
the second repeat or so. Then
{\times2/3 {g8 c' es'} \times2/3 {g8 c' es'} g8*2/3 c' es' g c' es'}
would be
{g12 c' es' g c' es' g8*2/3 c' es' g c' es'}
placing brackets every three 12-th notes by following automatic beaming.
It might be more clear to have the *x/y get the tuplet brackets,
{g8*2/3 c' es' g c' es' g12 c' es' g c' es'}
placing brackets every three 2/3rd 8-th notes because y=3.
We would still use \times x/y {} a lot -- for the case of \times 4/6 {}
that Francisco brought up, and also probably for the case Carl brought up
\times 2/3 {c8. c16} (unless {c12. c24} is clear enough, and the c12. is
kept distinct from c8 even though it lasts the same time).
For context, we should remember another earlier suggestion :
\tuplet 6/4 {..} means \times 4/6 {..} for 6 notes in the usual time of 4.
\tuplet 6 {..} means \tuplet 6/4 {..} as 4 is the closest power of 2 below 6.
\tuplet {..} means \tuplet 6/4 {..} if the
\t {..} can be defined by users as shorthand for \tuplet {..} if they like.
The \tuplet system would help more in the general case.
For examples, Debussy likes tuplets
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?searchingfor=debussy
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
