Re: Implementation of \tuplet allow both incorrect and correct musical expressions

[Peter Bjuhr]

On 2015-03-26 21:47, Simon Albrecht wrote:

Peter, My "strange" example of tuplets using neither "Math Rule" nor "Nearness Rule" will be clarified if  I show the context. Here is that context from a part of the piece I wrote for solo bassoon:

 

\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
\score {
\relative c' {
\partial 4
\clef "bass"
\key af \major

 

 c,,8(  { \tuplet 5/2 { g'16 c ef g c) } }
 |
    
   ef4\fermata     
   \tuplet 3/2 { df8 ef df }
   \tuplet 3/2 { c df c }
   \afterGrace bf4 \startTrillSpan { a32 bf \stopTrillSpan }
 |

 

   af,8-.[ c'-.
   bf-. g,-.]
   f-.[ af'-.
   g-. ef,-.]
 |

 

   df8( { \tuplet 7/2 { f16 bf  df f  bf  df f~) } }     
   f4~\fermata     
   \tuplet 3/2 { f8 ef( f }
   \tuplet 3/2 { g16[ af g } f16 g])
 |

 

} %relative
\layout { }
\midi {  }
} %score

 

My point is that in this context,  the 5/2 and 7/2 tuplets seem more elegant  than if you followed the "Math Rule" using 5/4 and 7/4, and that the player would not be confused when playing the score.  These two tuplets are the only ones in this section and the triple beams (required by "Math Rule") look rather messy by comparison. Even messier is the "Nearness Rule" giving 7/8 for the septuplet with a quaduple beam.

Thanks for sharing the full snippet! You have learned LilyPond quickly! And it's now easier to see what you are aiming for.

The first bar is an upbeat (partial) so the timing isn't exact anyway. But the last bar with the septuplet is too crowded in my reading. I'd definitively prefer 32ths here instead of 16ths.

But when you write that the 16ths are more elegant it suggests to me that you're aiming for a notation with more rhythmical freedom like grace notes or a cadenza. (You also use excessive brackets to enclose these tuplets that to me invoke the feeling of something (rhythmically) exceptional.)

Interesting that you perceive it that way. Certainly, it looks less ‘impressive’. :-) Personally, I’d probably prefer following the Nearness Rule here. But, you see, for that reason it’s good that Lily gives us the freedom to choose ourselves.

I totally agree! Lily should be a flexible tool and give the full freedom that it is up to the composer/engraver to master.

Best
Peter