On 12/18/06, David Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Carl Youngblood wrote:

>There are also places where 3/2 is necessary with the current way of
>doing things.  For example, I was just doing a piece in 12/8 time
>where triplets are the norm and I needed to do eighth notes with a
>two feel.  In this case I had to use \times 3/2 { c8 c } etc.  I
>guess in this case you're saying it would be more intuitive to do
>2/3?  I really don't mind the way things are now.  It's a syntax that
>has to be learned anyway, and once you learn it, it seems about the
>same effort either way.


The way the syntax is now, is (in musical terms) the opposite of what's
printed. Having the syntax match the print is likely to be easier to learn
for at least the majority, if not everyone. (The way the syntax is now, it
makes mathematical sense; which is nice - but I don't think it serves a
practical purpose.)


On the contrary, I think making mathematical sense serves a very practical
purpose: it is more consistent with the non-tuplet method of scaling
duration and it is (at least for me) easier to remember.

In LilyPond, if I want to print a half note but I only want it to use the
duration of a quarter note, I use c2*1/2. If I want to make a quarter note
take up the duration of a half note, I use c4*2. If I want 3 eighth notes to
take up the space of a quarter note (2/3 of their usual duration), I use
\times 2/3 {a8 b c}. OK, so the syntax is different but at least the math is
the same.

I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly the
same as \times 2/3 {a b c} but I thought that this thread was about
_reducing_ the number of redundant constructs. I think that having two ways
to do tuplets (that are exactly the same except for taking the reciprocal of
the fraction) is a recipe for confusion.

By the way, if you really want to use 3/2 instead of 2/3, I'm sure it's
possible to whip up a scheme function.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Reply via email to