Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hello James, Ian and list,

On 05.10.2012 09:10, James wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward.
> >
> > There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the
> > current \times command.
> >
> > 1. \tuplet n/m {<music expression>}
> > %  does what \times does, but not so easily confused with \time
> > %  command.
> > 2. \triplet {<music expression>} % shorthand for current
> > %  \times 2/3 command
> > 3. \duplet {<music expression} % shorthand for current
> > %  \times 3/2 command
> > 4. \quadruplet {<music expression} % shorthand for current
> > %  \times 6/4 command
> > 5. \sextuplet {<music expression} % shorthand for current
> > %  \times 4/6 command
> Do we need all these commands?
I think they are welcome shortcuts for very common tuplets. If you have 
some sophisticated piece with 7/5 tuplets, you can still use tuplet/times.
But for all those piece with long runs of triplets, I always define a 
music-function trip = #(define-music-function (parser location 
mus)(ly:music?) #{ \times 2/3 { $mus } #})
> Can't we just have \tupelet and then a qualifier (or whatever it is
> called) that then determines if it is 3/2. 2/3, 6/4 etc.
>
> I may be the only one but no one that I play with makes any
> distinction from a musical point of view between a 'tupelet' that is
> 2/3 and one that is, say, 5/3 or 6/4. They are all 'tupelets.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet
>
> Am I missing something Ian (if so, sorry)?
Tuplets are tuplets so why should it be
trip and quad should get along so awfully ...

IMHO tuplets deserve dignity ... but if we have to write them down, it 
doesn't hurt to use shortcuts for the common trips.

Cheers, Jan-Peter