lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: alternative notation for tuplets (idea)?

 From: Jethro Van Thuyne Subject: Re: alternative notation for tuplets (idea)? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:24:30 +0200 (CEST) User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)

Why the urge to change? When \times has been used for such a long time,
replacing it with "tuplet" or advanced arithmetics would make things far
more difficult. I don't see the problem with the current system.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Bernardo Barros wrote:

> One think I don't like, since I use a lot of tuplets, is the
> similarity between "time" and "times".
> Why not \tuplet 9/8 instead of \times 8/9 ?
>
> > Hi,
> > an idea about tuplets came to my head (and a quick seach suggested that it
> > wasn't discussed before).
> > In LilyPond we write durations in form of denominators, i.e. c4 = "c note
> > that lasts 1/4 the duration of a whole note", d16 = "d note with a duration
> > 16 times shorter than whole note" etc., but for the tuplets we need the
> > \times notation. Of course it works, but maybe we can make it simpler?
> > Why not use numbers other than powers of 2? For example,
> > c1 d3 e3 c3 d1 would mean c1 \times 2/3 { d2 e2 c2 } d1
> > c3 d6 e2 would mean \times 2/3 { c2 d4 } e2
> > c20 c c c c c c c c c e2 d9 d d d d d d d d  would mean \times 4/5 { c16 c c
> > c c } \times 4/5 { c16 c c c c } e2 \times 8/9 { d8 d d d d d d d d }
> > and so on.
> > In my opinion it would be useful for simple tuplets - input would look less
> > cumbersome and would be faster to type. Of course for complicated tuplets
> > and some special uses old syntax should be used.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>