[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
From: |
Erik Sandberg |
Subject: |
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:54:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 22:29, address@hidden wrote:
> > ... in irregular, tuplet-intensive music it may be sensible to create a
> > music function for sequences of tuplets. In addition, it's IMHO a more
> > lilypondesque solution than tupletSpannerDuration, once we support
> > fractions as music function arguments.
>
> If I understand you correctly, this would involve specifying, one way or
> another, the duration of each actual tuplet. Explicit specification of a
> duration (other than by an external tupletSpannerDuration declaration) has
> been suggested by another user, and IMO it would be a good idea, although
> I gather that Han-Wen is not in favour of the idea.
No, \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} would just be a shorthand
for \tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d}
It is problematic to use durations to decide the scaling of a tuplet; this has
been discussed previously in this thread. E.g., if you scale 3 8th notes to
duration 4, then it is unclear whether it corresponds to factor 2/3 or 4/6.
> But I have a question about how one would specify a duration. Specifying
> durations in the way we usually think about them allows actual durations
> that look like this:
> 1 ==> 1
> 2... ==> 15/16
> 2.. ==> 7/8
> 2. ==> 3/4
> 4... ==> 15/32
> 4.. ==> 7/16
> 4. ==> 3/8
> 4 ==> 1/4
> (etc.)
> so that only durations of the form
> 2^(p-1) / 2^q (where p < q)
> can be specified this way. But given the extravagancies of contemporary
> music, wouldn't it be possible, for example, to have a tuplet where 4
> eighth notes would be played over a time interval of 5 eighths --
> \times 5/4 {c8 d e f}
> Or does such a thing never happen? If it does, then the tuplet's
> duration, equal to 5/8 here, cannot be expressed simply by a dotted-note
> notation such as in the preceding list.
you could always write 1*5/8, which is a valid duration.
--
Erik
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, (continued)
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Frédéric Chiasson, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Mats Bengtsson, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Frédéric Chiasson, 2007/01/06
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Brett Duncan, 2007/01/06
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question,
Erik Sandberg <=
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Erik Sandberg, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2007/01/05
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Erik Sandberg, 2007/01/06
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2007/01/06
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Erik Sandberg, 2007/01/07
- clean relative pitches, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2007/01/07
- New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question), stk, 2007/01/07
- Re: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question), Mats Bengtsson, 2007/01/08
- Re: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question), stk, 2007/01/08