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

Hello, On 8 October 2012 14:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 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 on

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

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 accur

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

James 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, > but 'no one r

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

Ian, On 6 October 2012 16:40, Ian Hulin wrote: > On 05/10/12 08:10, James wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin wrote: >>> This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward. >>> >>> There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the >>> curren

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

Ian Hulin writes: > On 05/10/12 08:47, David Kastrup wrote: >> Ian Hulin 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 a

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

On 05/10/12 08:47, David Kastrup wrote: > Ian Hulin 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} becau

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

On 05/10/12 08:10, James wrote: > Hello, > > On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin 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 {} >> % does what

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

Joseph Rushton Wakeling 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 readily able to recog

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

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 having

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

On 2012-10-05 09:10, James wrote: Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin 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 {} % does what \times does, but no

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

Ian Hulin 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 notes in th

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

Ian Hulin 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 inve

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

Hello James, Ian and list, On 05.10.2012 09:10, James wrote: Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin 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 {} % d

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

Hello, On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin 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 {} > % does what \times does, but not so easily confused with

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes: > On 27 sept. 2012, at 19:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling > wrote: > >> On 25/09/12 18:03, James wrote: >>> PAH! >>> >>> I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast >> >> If you mean Mike Solomon then yes, his scores engraved with Lilypond >> are mightily imp

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

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 {} % does what \times does, but not so easily confused with \time % command. 2. \triplet {} % shorthand for current % \t

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 27/09/12 21:06, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote: From my Suite Post Algorithmica. I stand corrected, and rather amused :-) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 27/09/12 19:15, Ian Hulin wrote: 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

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 25/09/12 18:03, James wrote: PAH! I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast If you mean Mike Solomon then yes, his scores engraved with Lilypond are mightily impressive. :-) ... but for the problem at hand -- in the scores I've seen, he doesn't use the complex nested tuplets o

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

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 Ferneyhou

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Benkő Pál writes: >> Well, "music argument after left-out optional argument" at the current >> point of time means "closed music". It is likely a safe bet that we >> rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem, >> and I am chugging away at getting the "closed music" th

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

> Well, "music argument after left-out optional argument" at the current > point of time means "closed music". It is likely a safe bet that we > rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem, > and I am chugging away at getting the "closed music" thing scrapped, but > that

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

"Keith OHara" writes: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:51:43 -0700, Francisco Vila > wrote: > >> 2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł : >>> Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for >>> algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code. >>> Another advantage is code readability

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:51:43 -0700, Francisco Vila wrote: 2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł : Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code. Another advantage is code readability and ease of copying it (shall i elaborat

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Ian Hulin writes: > Advantages: > 1. Quicker note entry for triplet quaver and crotchet groups. > 2. It is considerably less opaque and cryptic-looking than the other > alternative to \times 2/3 { ... } > c8*2/3 c c . > > Drawbacks: The main drawback I see is that the specification is "in lowest

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 23/09/12 22:45, Graham Percival wrote: > This is an informal chat idea, following David's latest suggestion > that such emails could go on -devel instead of requiring a separate > mailing list. I fully expect this not to work. > But let's give it a go anyway. I have a few concerns, but these

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 25 September 2012 16:49, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 25/09/12 06:48, Keith OHara wrote: >> >> Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-notes, 9th notes, etc. >> > > > If nested tuplets are your intended testing

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 25/09/12 06:48, Keith OHara wrote: Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-notes, 9th notes, etc. If nested tuplets are your intended testing ground, try engraving Ferneyhough. All else is playground stuff. :-)

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

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 li

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:40:50 -0700, Janek Warchoł wrote: I imagine that we could have arbitrary integer durations intended for use with straightforward tuplets, while continue using explicit \times command for complicated (for example nested) ones. Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł : > Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for > algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code. > Another advantage is code readability and ease of copying it (shall i > elaborate?) > > Besides, it's not like we would loose any functi

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:27 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> Interesting. Apart from which one would produce tuplet brackets, >> maybe *x/y notation would allow us to distinguish between >> >> \times 2/3 { b16 b b } >> \times 2/3 { b16 b b } >> >> and >> >> \times 4/6

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Janek Warchoł writes: > Interesting. Apart from which one would produce tuplet brackets, > maybe *x/y notation would allow us to distinguish between > > \times 2/3 { b16 b b } > \times 2/3 { b16 b b } > > and > > \times 4/6 { b16 b b b b b } > > by writing { b16*2/3 b b b b b } and { b16*4

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Hi all, First thing that i'd like to say about Graham's proposal is that supporting arbitrary integer durations doesn't mean we have to abolish \times (or \tuplet, if we decide to rename it). I imagine that we could have arbitrary integer durations intended for use with straightforward tuplets, w

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes: > Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots). > Making a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ... } or a *x/y > scaling factor. We could avoid this (in common cases) by allowing > arbitrary integer durations. > > c4 e \times 2/3 {

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Janek Warchoł writes: > Hi all, > > just a quick note before i go to sleep: > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: >> [...] allow arbitrary integer durations. >> >> c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g } >> into: >> c4 e c6 e g > > I had this idea in my head for two years, and it

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Hi all, just a quick note before i go to sleep: On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > [...] allow arbitrary integer durations. > > c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g } > into: > c4 e c6 e g I had this idea in my head for two years, and it was the subject of the second email i've

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Carl Sorensen writes: > On 9/23/12 4:48 PM, "Francisco Vila" wrote: > >>2012/9/23 Graham Percival : >>> The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in >>> addition to the current >>> 1 2 4 8 >>> we have >>> 3 => \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3) >>> 6 => \ti

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

On 9/23/12 4:48 PM, "Francisco Vila" wrote: >2012/9/23 Graham Percival : >> The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in >> addition to the current >> 1 2 4 8 >> we have >> 3 => \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3) >> 6 => \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note divi

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

2012/9/23 Graham Percival : > The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x. So in > addition to the current > 1 2 4 8 > we have > 3 => \times 2/3 { c2 }(whole note divided by 3) > 6 => \times 2/3 { c4 }(whole note divided by 6) > ... etc. Looks good but would it make ea

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Graham Percival writes: > Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots). > Making a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ... } or a *x/y > scaling factor. We could avoid this (in common cases) by allowing > arbitrary integer durations. > > c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g } > into: >

Re: [talk] easy tuplets

Graham Percival writes: > This is an informal chat idea, following David's latest suggestion > that such emails could go on -devel instead of requiring a > separate mailing list. I fully expect this not to work. Please keep [talk] threads free from disparaging comments. -- David Kastrup ___

[talk] easy tuplets

This is an informal chat idea, following David's latest suggestion that such emails could go on -devel instead of requiring a separate mailing list. I fully expect this not to work. Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots). Making a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ...