Re: [talk] easy tuplets

[Ian Hulin]

Hi Joseph,
On 25/09/12 16:43, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 24/09/12 18:27, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts.  You would not
>> talk about "12th notes" to other musicians.
> 
> That's not entirely true.  Contemporary composers (I think Ferneyhough
> started it, others have continued it) have used time signatures like
> x/10, x/6, etc. (which Lilypond already supports) where the base unit is
> a quintuplet-eighth, a triplet-quarter, etc.
> 
> (There are earlier examples of equivalent time signatures, e.g. in
> Boulez, but they don't use the simple ratio -- Boulez writes things like
> (4 + 2/3)/4 where Ferneyhough would have written 7/6.)
> 
> Given such a musical context, it may make more sense to write,
> 
>     \time 4/10
>     c'10 \times 2/3 { c'10 c' c' } c'20 c'
> 
> than,
> 
>     \time 4/10
>     \times 4/5 { c'8 \times 2/3 { c'8 c' c' } c'16 c' }
You're getting into an edge-case here as far as more bread-and-butter
typesetting is concerned.  (Mike S's is maybe way out over the edge :-) .)

It's slightly off-topic from Graham's original proposition in the thread
base-message, which was restricted to multiple-of-two/multiples-of three
type duplets.  This part of the thread has strayed beyond extra valid
values for durations, and we've strayed into time-signatures-as-tuplets
territory.

However what you say here is good information and shouldn't get lost.

Maybe you should repost this as a separate [talk] thread, with a more
descriptive title?

Cheers,
Ian