[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets
From: |
James |
Subject: |
Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:55:33 +0100 |
Hello,
On 8 October 2012 14:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
Exactly.
>
> 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.
Well in all honesty my orchestral colleagues at least, would call
*any* instance of a tuplet with X as it's definer a 'X tuplet'
regardless of beat or fraction.
So a slew of notes with a 5 above it is a 'five-tuplet' and while I
rarely see these more esoteric/eclectic 9:8, 11:8 - the name becomes
irrelevant compared to 'how do you play the damned thing' and apart
from composers I probably doubt that 'most' instrumentalists will work
it out but simply try to fit those notes in the rhythm without
consciously thinking about if it is 9:7 or 9:8 etc.
I wondered if we were getting bogged down with adding more functions,
if there is a legitimate reason apart from just being linguistically
correct, then I am all for it of course (likewise if I can use \tuplet
5:4 instead of having to worry about using \quintuplet or is it
\quiplet :) then the rest of you can have at it.
WWGS?
(what would Gould say?)
Unituplets anyone?
James
Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets, Keith OHara, 2012/10/05
Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets, David Kastrup, 2012/10/05