The following is a tuplet extract from one of my scores. I currently have notated with tuplet number “9”, but I would like it to read “9:3”, to reflect the grouping in triplets for each of the three 16th notes. Any way to do this?
I do not want to use nested/hierarchical tuplet numbering. I also want to keep
the 3-beam notation.
The only Dorico option for listing a ratio seems to be “9:6,” which is not musically very useful.
Your tuplet of 9 notes take the space of 3 16th (or 6 32th). You probably wrote the tuplet starting with 32th value, and Dorico calculates correctly that there are 9 notes (32th) instead of 6.
Correct. But musically, it is a set of triplets, each keyed to a 16th note.
I’d like to list as 9:3. I believe this can’t be done in Dorico, short of hacks.
To me to have your desired 9:3 shown, and to have notated 32th would look illogical. If you want 9:3 you have to use 16th. But maybe someone else has a better idea, opinion.
If you click the tuplet and open Properties (not sure if in Write and/or Engrave mode), you should be able to write whatever ratio you want.
(Even though “9:3” is incorrect)
I see no option in Properties to write whatever ratio I want. Only 9:6 appears.
In my view, a simple triplet can be viewed as “3:2” as well as “3:1”. It depends on the ‘basis’, i.e. unit of measurement or denominator. Hence, in my example, there is an argument that 9:3 is entirely correct.
Dorico will only do tuplet ratios of the same note value. You can’t say “9 32nds in the time of 3 16ths” in a tuplet designation. The only way to write this incorrect notation would be to add it as text.
A moment’s examination of your screenshot shows that the 4th of 9 notes aligns with the eighth in the other staff, so it is already quite clear that this occupies 3 16ths.
If you want it played precisely, a more standard way to write it would be as 3 triplets.
I’ll leave it as “9” only, with my hierarchical beaming. It seems this capability is not yet in Dorico.
Having the only ‘correct’ ratio option in Dorico as “9:6” is limiting – it is not really musical in this case.
And, as I said earlier, in a tuplet one should be able to consider a flexible variety of denominators. For example, a triplet occupying 1 quarter note should be notatable in multiple ways; as:
3:2 (where the denominator is an 1/8 note)
3:1 (where the denominator is a 1/4 note)
3:4 (where the denominator is a 1/16 note)
All are correct, as is my 9:3. These are all different legitimate musical views of the same pattern. (And these alternatives hould not involve any changes in the # of beams.)
All these are possible in Dorico…
No. Your 9:3 would correctly be displayed as semiquavers, not demisemiquavers.
As Demisemis, it should be 9:6 (as others have pointed out)
Edit: Of course you can change beaming to indicate rhythmic groups if needed.
Yes, upon checking, this seems to be correct; You can only edit the appearance of a tuplet and not the ratio.
AFAIK the denominator indicates the number of notes into which your tuplet fits and not the note value (I hope I worded that the way it’s in my head). I have to respectfully disagree with your view and I believe 9:3 would be 9 demisemi in the space of 3 demisemi.
I think this thread is reaching its end. Thanks anyway for the responses.
I’m clearly indicating that the denominator indicates the # of notes against which the numerator is set (and not the note values).
As for the realization of my 3 examples by @{Janus}, with widely ranging note values (1/8, 1/4, 1/16) for three notes spanning identical 1/4 note interval, I’ve never seen several of these options in the music literature.
Several posters are adamant that these examples are correct, so clearly there is something I am missing. Yet, all of what I have been taught, and in numerous scores, there is almost always a simple rule followed: the note values in a tuplet, summed up, must be (i) greater than the underlying time interval occupied (in the above examples by Janus, 1/4 note), and (ii) less than twice that interval (i.e. 1/2 note).
By this, the only correct beaming/note values would be the first tuplet below, where the sum of note values is 3/8, occupying 1/4 note.
By the same logic, my 9:3 with 3 beams would correct.
Below are two random examples — the 1st a Chopin Nouvelle Etude (op post.) and the 2nd a rich set of tuplet exs. from Villa Lobos’ Bachianas Brasileiras #6 for flute + bassoon, where I believe all tuples agree with the rule I stated above, in terms of the note values.
I’d be very interested in some clear response on where you see I am off notationally – and I am not referring to me not matching what Dorico does.
No it is not. The ratio is always x in the time of y. Your 9:3 would be interpreted as 9 32nds n the space of 3 32nds…
That said, of course Dorico has the flexibility to bend to your will…
(you just need a hidden tuplet inside the 9:3 to correct the ratio for 32nds)
Yes, I have to agree with @Janus (and I gave the same explanation).
In your example, it doesn’t show the ratios and so I’m not sure how I can best respond since that’s what we are discussing?
But, the 9th tuplet (bar 3 of your second example), if written with a ratio, should be 9:8: 9 x demisemi in the space of 8. Then beamed however you choose.
This is exactly the proper definition, and by far the easiest way to calculate things.
Modern music seems less inclinced to strictly follow the rule @smn mentioned above. In either case, what is important is that the ratio, if displayed, is correct.
Most composers do still follow the rule you cited (ratio between 1 and 2, with the exception of duplets, of course). I think the responses about notating differently in Dorico are a red herring on this topic. They’re just showing what can be done, not what should be done.
The published examples in post #11 show only tuplet numbers, which is fine. For example, there’s no need to say those 7 32nds are in the time of one eighth because it’s clarified by the other notes. The 9 is beamed as 3 triplets because that’s what it is. The “9” itself and the slur suggest that it be a single gesture as opposed to having to align perfectly with the bassoon triplet.
Common-practice composers of piano music often didn’t even bother to write a tuplet number where it can be deduced from the surrounding notes.
Thank you, @Mark_Johnson. Agreed…
The basic rule I presented is simple, and musically straightforward:
With tuplets, one aims to have “a ratio of x against y, i.e. a polyrhythm, (i.e. x and y are each #'s of notes, not durations), where only the note duration of the basis y notes is specified.”
So, 9 against 8, where the denominator (i…e. 8) has value 1/8, or 1/16, or … It makes no musical sense to talk of the values of the numerator. One simply specifies (i) a polyrhythm ratio (y:x), and (ii) the underlying note value of each basis note (denominator). The values in the numerator and then determined.
As Mark concurred, most composers do follow the rule I cite, which indicates the # of beams (i.e. equivalent note values) for the x notes. I.e. the note values displayed in the numerator, add up to greater than the sum in the denominator, and less than twice the sum in the denominator.
All the examples I includes (msg # 11) support this as a normal rule. I am not saying there aren’t exceptions in old conventions, or more modern examples. As far as I have seen, this rule on # of beams for the notes (i…e. numerator) holds both if a single tuplet number is used, or if a ratio is used.
In contrast several posters ( @Janus @DanielMuzMurray ) indicate this is “incorrect”. Some strange examples which violate this rule are included (e.g post #8) which I have never seen in the literature. Rather than reiterating how I am incorrect, I’m still looking forward to receiving their examples from the literature (not from Dorico), to show where I am off base. I am certainly open to being educated.
Just for your amusement, pick a page of Brian Ferneyhough more or less at random…
(I would welcome @Andro’s observations on notating tuplets)
To be honest, the music I have here at home does not contain ratios and I’m not going looking for any at this stage.
I’d actually be really keen to see some examples of the rule you’re stating? It’s fine to describe what your rule is but it might make a bit more sense (to me, at least) if I can see what you’re referring to?
Of course. And others have already commented that there is some movement in recent modern scores away from this ‘convention’ or rule that I describe. Given that I was told how my rule was ‘incorrect’, I was talking about the large range of music convention from late classical period to early-mid modern. (The Ferneyhough doesn’t undercut my observation…)
To DanielMuzMurray:
see my previous post – I clearly indicate I am talking about both a single tuplet number as well as a tuplet ‘ratio’. I provided beautiful detailed examples above for single tuplet number, which support the rule I was raising (which Mark_Johnson also agreed with)… And I requested classic examples which violate this rule. So I look forward – whether with a single tuplet #, or with a tuplet ratio.
