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

2012-10-08 Thread James
Ian, On 6 October 2012 16:40, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote: On 05/10/12 08:10, James wrote: Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote: This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually

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

2012-10-08 Thread David Kastrup
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes: I have no problem with having more commands in that while 'musos' might have their terms, 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,

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

2012-10-08 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling
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

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

2012-10-08 Thread James
Hello, On 8 October 2012 14:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net 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

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

2012-10-06 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling
On 10/05/2012 09:31 AM, Keith OHara wrote: It is easier to keep the order straight if you write a 5:4 tuplet as \tuplet 5/4 {} Is there any reason why you couldn't write \tuplet 5:4 {} ... ? Keeps exact match between musical and Lilypond syntax and avoids the potential mental block of

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

2012-10-06 Thread David Kastrup
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes: On 10/05/2012 09:31 AM, Keith OHara wrote: It is easier to keep the order straight if you write a 5:4 tuplet as \tuplet 5/4 {} Is there any reason why you couldn't write \tuplet 5:4 {} ... ? Yes. 5/4 is an item that the parser is

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

2012-10-06 Thread Ian Hulin
On 05/10/12 08:10, James wrote: Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote: This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1. \tuplet n/m {music

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

2012-10-06 Thread Ian Hulin
On 05/10/12 08:47, David Kastrup wrote: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk writes: 1. Should the new \tuplet retain the \times meaning of the fraction, i.e. \tuplet 2/3 {c8 c c} uses 2/3 because that's what you'd use if you were just using durations: c8*2/3 c c , or invert it as \tuplet 3/2 {c8 c

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

2012-10-06 Thread David Kastrup
Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk writes: On 05/10/12 08:47, David Kastrup wrote: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk writes: 1. Should the new \tuplet retain the \times meaning of the fraction, i.e. \tuplet 2/3 {c8 c c} uses 2/3 because that's what you'd use if you were just using durations: c8*2/3 c c

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

2012-10-05 Thread James
Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote: This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1. \tuplet n/m {music expression} % does what \times does, but

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

2012-10-05 Thread Jan-Peter Voigt
Hello James, Ian and list, On 05.10.2012 09:10, James wrote: Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote: This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1.

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

2012-10-05 Thread Keith OHara
Ian Hulin ian at hulin.org.uk writes: Questions: 1. Should the new \tuplet [...] \tuplet 3/2 {c8 c c} because that reflects better the three notes in the time of two definition of a triplet. It is easier to keep the order straight if you write a 5:4 tuplet as \tuplet 5/4 {} We have to

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

2012-10-05 Thread David Kastrup
Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk writes: 1. Should the new \tuplet retain the \times meaning of the fraction, i.e. \tuplet 2/3 {c8 c c} uses 2/3 because that's what you'd use if you were just using durations: c8*2/3 c c , or invert it as \tuplet 3/2 {c8 c c} because that reflects better the three

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

2012-10-05 Thread Reinhold Kainhofer
On 2012-10-05 09:10, James wrote: Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote: This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1. \tuplet n/m {music

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

2012-10-04 Thread Ian Hulin
This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1. \tuplet n/m {music expression} % does what \times does, but not so easily confused with \time % command. 2. \triplet {music