I managed to do this:
What would be the correct font in with the line tool to replicate tuplets?
Tuplet test.dorico (363.2 KB)
Hi there
There are a couple of alternatives that avoid nesting tuplets. The top line in my picture below is the easiest one I can think of that retains the exact rhythmic information of the source. I would probably use this one if the barline is non-negotiable. (If itās negotiable, then maybe the nested tuplet @SampoKasurinen posted would be best.)
Your idea of a fanned beam group is a good one for this example, because there are four noteheads on either side of the barline, so itās easy enough to do. Iāve used a one-to-two beam version in the second example, as it most closely resembles the original. I like this a lot, because the outcome will be identical or nearly so, with less ācognitive loadā on the player.
The third example is a notation Iāve seen and used occasionally. It has some drawbacks, but is clear about the composerās intention. There is a small danger ā in sight-reading only, I think ā that the player will embark on the accel. too fast, since the notes are all semiquavers (sixteenths) but the accel. requires that they start slower than that. In general one can assume a modicum of practice, though, which will remove this danger.
I think that in this out-of-context example, partial tuplets would be sub-optimal. I add my voice to the feature request for future-Dorico, as I would still have a use for them in other contexts, but not here.
cheers
Jeremy
A big problem with Dorico, and any notation program for that matter, is idiot ācomposersā wanting to be able to do stupid things that a player would not even think of. In this case, the third manner of notating is much easier for the player than some hyper-Messiaen rhythmic notation that would have him scratching his head.
And all this has to be fitted into a 2/4 bar!
Cheers,
D
2 Likes
Haha. Iām all in favour of minimising complexity. But we value composers precisely because they think of things that others (players) do not. (Even if they are also, in some way, idiots.)
If a notation is required to produce the musical outcome that a composer desires, then it is necessary. There are many examples of what I see as unnecessary complexity out there. But if public opinion creates a (small but fiercely loyal) market for this stuff, then Iām not going to turn down the work.
J
Really great ideas!!
It hadnāt occurred to me that nesting a 4:6 tuplet would ācancel outā the effect of the big triplet on the 16ths. Very clever.
Looking at all of these examples though, it looks to me now that the easiest to comprehend by far is in fact the feathered beam. My only gripe with it is that it makes the A appear to be sitting right on the downbeat, which could potentially confuse some people. Maybe the best solution is simply to adjust the horizontal position of the notes? Or does Dorico have a feature where it can automatically space out notes within a feathered beam in a way that helps the visual of an accellerando (i.e., further apart at the start, closer together at the end)?
OK, I found it: select the ātuplet fontā style and paste in this character: ī¢
I found it here: https://www.smufl.org/version/latest/range/tuplets/
Also, to make the line perfectly match the default tuplet bracket, make a new line with thickness 1/8 and a new hook style of 1/8 thickness and 3/4 length.
Thanks! Iāll save this for the future, just to be prepared for the worstā¦ 
Hi again
The feathered beaming ātrumpsā the bar line it crosses, so the placement of the noteheads is inconsequential. Any well-judged accelerando must result in the A being played later than beat 1 of the second bar.
As to spacing the notes a bit proportionally, I donāt think Dorico supports this. I tend to resist its use because it is the feathered beaming that shows the rhythmic effect.
In practice, the difference in duration between the slowest and the fastest note in a feathered beam group is often not large, and that is the case here, because there are only eight notes, and they appear to halve in value, from quaver (eighth) to semiquaver (sixteenth).
(A feathered beam group cannot show starting with durations longer than a quaver (eighth) because they wouldnāt be beamed. Other notations would be employed if that were required.)
I freely admit that my reluctance to alter note placement in feathered beam groups may also be partly to do with the faffing about that is required.
cheers
Jeremy