Has the horizontal placement of tuplet numbers changed in 6.2.10?
It looks off. See the settings below.
No, there is no change at all in the placement of tuplet digits in Dorico 6.2.10 compared to Dorico 6.2:
Dorico 6.2:
Dorico 6.2.10:
I must have missed it earlier then.
It looks like Dorico’s definition of a “rhythmic center” is inconsistent with common publishing practice, where it is understood semantically, not as a measurement of time. The rhythmic center of a triplet is the second note, not the space between the second and the third. Accordingly, the rhythmic center of a duplet is between notes, not the second note. I attach some examples from Schott (Stravinsky and Penderecki).
1 Like
I think those examples correspond with Dorico’s “visual” center.
1 Like
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Dorico’s visual center is always in the horizontal middle of a beam or bracket. My examples show the numbers or off of the visual center, whenever the spacing of a tuplet is altered (e.g. affected by presence of accidentals).
For unaltered spacing of tuplets, visual center == rhythmic center.
the rhythmic center position makes no sense neither semantically, nor as a measure of time, since an accidental doesn’t have a temporal value. In other words, this approach would only make sense if accidentals didn’t affect note spacing.
3 Likes
Okay, I see what you’re saying. I’m a little perplexed by the rhythmic center examples from Dorico, but the visual center ones make sense to me – even if it’s not what you (or Ross, or Stravinsky) would like.
1 Like
Yes, the visual center setting works as expected. It’s easy to calculate and implement in software, although I dare you to find an example of a major European publisher, who would use it in print.
Here are two more examples from Boosey and Hawkes and Universal:
1 Like
This is how I “think” Dorico understands the visual and rhythmic center. Both settings seem to calculate a visual center between different reference points. None of them indicates an actual semantic rhythmic center.
8 Likes
So I guess what you are saying is that Dorico is lacking an option to place the 3 above the middle note - wherever it actually is.
7 Likes
Interesting, thank you!
So actually it should be a special option for all tuplets with an odd number of notes, which would place the number on the middle note in all cases.
Examples here with 5, 7 and 11 in The Firebird (Dover) and The Rite of Spring (Boosey & Hawkes)
6 Likes
And splitting the distance between the middle two notes for tuplets with an even number of notes.
I could see this getting complex when there are nested tuplets, or when there are tuplets with unequal durations.
1 Like
A few pertinent examples, all from Milton Babbitt as engraved by Peters:
Post-Partitions:
Arie Da Capo:
3 Likes
there is also a long-standing practice of not using brackets when the tuplet number is on the notehead side and the beam grouping is clear. Dorico needs an option for this.
This example is from Peters (Chopin)
3 Likes
2 Likes
I meant Engraving Setting, not manual edits.
1 Like
But what would the actual rule be? Why place the tuplet on the notehead side by default?
This would fall under “Show tuplet brackets” > “only when necessary” > “do not require a bracket on the notehead side”.
The rule would be: “If a bracket is not necessary on the stem-side, it is also not necessary on the notehead-side.”
It should not affect the tuplet placement at all.
4 Likes