Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets

[James]

Hello,

On 8 October 2012 14:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 10/08/2012 01:29 PM, James wrote:
>>
>> I have the good fortune to play with
>> semi-professionals and also teachers who when I queried said [I
>> paraphrase], well sure I guess you could technically call them that,
>> but 'no one really does' and besides when do you stop calling them
>> their numerically accurate names (dodecatuplet)?
>
>
> Your problem isn't really what to call them, but just that once you get
> beyond the examples already cited there is no standard meaning.

Exactly.

>
> 2-, 3-, 5-, 6- and 7-tuplets all have a well-defined standard interpretation
> as respectively 2:3, 3:2, 5:4, 6:4 and 7:4, although the last is a more
> recent standardization not uniformly found in earlier musical examples.  9
> is tricky -- it's as likely to be 9:6 as 9:8.  Ironically 11 is probably
> better standardized as 11:8, at least these days; and I'm not sure I'd be
> confident in saying that 4-tuplets are almost always 4:6 rather than 4:3.
> But really, once you get beyond 7 there is no definitive standard ratio, and
> hence no real grounds for a dedicated named command.

Well in all honesty my orchestral colleagues at least, would call
*any* instance of a tuplet with X as it's definer a 'X tuplet'
regardless of beat or fraction.

So a slew of notes with a 5 above it is a 'five-tuplet' and while I
rarely see these more esoteric/eclectic 9:8, 11:8 - the name becomes
irrelevant compared to 'how do you play the damned thing' and apart
from composers I probably doubt that 'most' instrumentalists will work
it out but simply try to fit those notes in the rhythm without
consciously thinking about if it is 9:7 or 9:8 etc.

I wondered if we were getting bogged down with adding more functions,
if there is a legitimate reason apart from just being linguistically
correct, then I am all for it of course (likewise if I can use \tuplet
5:4 instead of having to worry about using \quintuplet or is it
\quiplet :) then the rest of you can have at it.

WWGS?

(what would Gould say?)

Unituplets anyone?

James