Re: Missing number in broken triplet

[Hans Aberg]

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.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 } |
> }
> or
> {
>  \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 Åberg