[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Missing number in broken triplet

From: Hans Aberg
Subject: Re: Missing number in broken triplet
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:09:17 +0100

On 28 Nov 2007, at 09:33, Mats Bengtsson wrote:

What you really are saying is that it's a bug that a single note triplet isn't marked as a triplet, i.e. that \times 2/3 {c8} is completely equivalent to c8*2/3,
also when it comes to printing the number indicating the triplet.

Either LilyPond should exclude the usage, or mark it properly. Since LilyPond can handle it already, it can just as well mark it properly.

Can you please refer to any printed music that uses such a notation (I cannot recall having every seen it, but on the other hand I haven't performed that
much modern music).

I have no use for it myself: I just note it is possible. But I have seen it in a suggestion for metric modulation.
That little 7 is in reality a 7:4.

When it comes to readability, I would very much prefer a notation like
 \time 2/8
 \times 2/3 { e16 f g ~ g8 a16 } |
 \time 2/8
 \times 4/6 { e16 f g ~ g8 a16 } |
if I were to perform the piece.

If one rewrites it as 6/8, it becomes an easily performable rhythm.
  \time 6/8
  e8 f8 g8~g4 a8 |

LilyPond cannot enforce good programming practices, just as no other programming language :-).

  Hans Ã…berg

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]