I think you can simply write the second eighth of the eighth note triplet as a sixteenth tied to another sixteenth, and the second sixteenth will fall on beat 3. Looks weird, but less weird than what you were suggesting.
Liudas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:06 PM Subject: [Finale] Triplet question > Okay, > > In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains > eighth note values or smaller. > > However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following > rhythm: > > quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes > followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest > > In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two. > > I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth > note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this: > > quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note > followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a > sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest. > > This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure. But in this case, I > think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more difficult > to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 2.5. > > What say you all? > > - Darcy > > ----- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Brooklyn NY > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
