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

[James]

Ian,

On 6 October 2012 16:40, Ian Hulin <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 05/10/12 08:10, 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
> It would be \tuplet, I assume that was a typo on your part.

Yes, for some reason the spell checker seems to not like Tuplet. Anyway...

..

>> 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)?
>>
> Yes.
>
> 'triplet', 'duplet', 'quadruplet' 'quintuplet' and 'sextuplet' are used
> in muso-speech to distinguish the commoner forms of tuplet.
>
> See Reinhold's reply as German has a parallel set of similar terms
> 'Triole', 'Duole' etc.
...

I have no problem with having more commands in that while 'musos'
might have their terms, I have the good fortune to play with
semi-professionals and also teachers who when I queried said [I
paraphrase], well sure I guess you could technically call them that,
but 'no one really does' and besides when do you stop calling them
their numerically accurate names (dodecatuplet)? Tuplet has no
numerical association (duplet, triplet, quadraplet?) and is distinct
only that it isn't a duplet. I.e. > duplet = tuplet (I think you get
my drift).

I guess what I was worried about was that \tuplet will no no longer
work and I remember if it is a duplet, setuplet or septuplet and so on
instead of saying \tuplet [some variable] here like I do for \times
[some fraction]

That was all.

James