Am 07.07.2008 um 22:14 schrieb Uri Sala:
It is a bit more convoluted than that. I will try to make myself
clearer:
I want to write 3 against 5. In this case, since 3 is smaller than
5, it has to use a rhythmic unit twice longer than the unit
associated with 5. Let's be over-explicit and call this "3 equally
spaced attacks within the duration of 5 sixteenth-notes." Well, I
will argue against most people and most notation manuals and most
modern scores that the only correct way to notate this is 3 eight-
notes against 5 sixteenth notes. Now, neither sibelius nor ENP nor
finale allow me to do this, since they force upon the editor the
assumed notion that nominator and denominator in a tuplet use the
same rhythmic value. This axioma makes it impossible to correctly
notate all possible complex tuplets (with non-binary denominators),
and makes the construction of an algorithm that translates
proportional notation (a la ENP) into lilypond code incredibly
convoluted. I thought lilypond was different - in that I could
stipulate different values for nom and denom - but I am not sure now.
Many people would argue that you can use the same value for both,
since 3 is so close to 5. But that makes your run into a
contradiction. The only way one can stipulate a general and
infallible rule for writing tuplets is that a tuplet is the
insertion of a certain number of rhythmic values into a space that
is smaller. Or, to put it another way, a tuplet - a correct one - is
a compression of the duration of a rhythmic value. Very easy to
prove: how would you write 6 against 5 sixteenths? Well, just like
that. (times 5/6 {c16 c c c c c}. So, if we write 3 against 5, the
value that those three notes take should be 8th notes, because all
we would have to do is aggregate each 2 sixteenths of the 6:5 into
eighth notes. But remember, I want still a total duration of 5
16ths!! So writing times 5/3 {c8 c c} will result in a tuplet twice
as long in duration than what I want, since lily thinks that I want
the duration to be 5 eighth notes. I have to be able to tell
lilypond that I want 3 eighth notes in the space of 5 sixteenth
notes (and that is just one of many examples. Trying to to 3 against
7 is even more complicated since the duration is more than twice the
attack. In 3 against 7, the three should be notated with quarter
notes!). Hope I made myself understood now.
I hope this does not turn into a discussion of the way to notate
tuplets, since there is only one that is actually inequivocal and
consistent. Unfortunately no editor allows one to produce it, which
is a very disturbing fact.
Could lilypond be the one?
cheers
uri
\version "2.11.50"
\relative {
\time 5/16
c16 d e f g
\times 5/6 {a8 f d}
}
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
