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

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 10/08/2012 01:29 PM, James wrote:
> 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)?

Your problem isn't really what to call them, but just that once you get beyond 
the examples already cited there is no standard meaning.

2-, 3-, 5-, 6- and 7-tuplets all have a well-defined standard interpretation as 
respectively 2:3, 3:2, 5:4, 6:4 and 7:4, although the last is a more recent 
standardization not uniformly found in earlier musical examples.  9 is tricky -- 
it's as likely to be 9:6 as 9:8.  Ironically 11 is probably better standardized 
as 11:8, at least these days; and I'm not sure I'd be confident in saying that 
4-tuplets are almost always 4:6 rather than 4:3.  But really, once you get 
beyond 7 there is no definitive standard ratio, and hence no real grounds for a 
dedicated named command.

The standardization of septuplets as 7:4 has seen some interesting notational 
variants -- for example, Elliott Carter has tended to write rhythms like

    \tuplet 7 { c'16. c'16. c'16. c'16. c'16. c'16. c'16. }

where someone like Ferneyhough would write,

    \tuplet 7/6 { c16 c16 c16 c16 c16 c16 c16 }