Dear James,
Thanks but, again, this is misleading, since the numbers in the
bracket would be 6:5 but there would be 3 notes inside the tuplet. I
don't have 6 attacks but 3. This is the kind of cheating I do in
Sibelius, and that I would like to avoid if possible. Sorry to be so
demanding, but isn't this what lilypond should be about? To output
exactly what you want?
Cheers,
Uri
On MondayJul 7, at MonJul 7|23:44 , James E. Bailey wrote:
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
