hi. i'm new to the list -- just a comment about the notation issue: yes, on p. 212, example 11-24 there is a nested tuplet figure with 3 triplet 16ths inside of one triplet 8th. i think the reason for only two beams is that each tuplet level only relates to the previous level -- so that the triplet 16ths only relate to the triplet 8th notes as if they were the prevailing meter (they know nothing of other levels)
however if we had 9 16ths as a single group this would be relating to the 16ths at the 'bottom' level and therefore would clearly be 9:8 and would require three beams. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 07:13:13 -0700 >From: "Bill Schottstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [CM] cmn factorize >To: Dave Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: René Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] > >But look at page 212 -- he gives exactly the case we were talking about >and uses 2 beams for 1/9. The earlier case is made simple by leaving >the discussion in terms of fancy meters with simple quarter note divisions, >so there 9 is clearly 9:2 in our thinking (and not problematic). >Also it irks me that he thinks he can smirk at Ives -- the bastard! > >_______________________________________________ >Cmdist mailing list >[email protected] >http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist Timothy E. Johnson visiting lecturer School of Music University of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign _______________________________________________ Cmdist mailing list [email protected] http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
