The following excerpt is from a piece called Brincado by the Brazilian composer Alberto Nepomuceno from the collection 5 Little Pieces for the Left Hand (imslp)

How should I count this?

  • 7
    That is indeed baffling and extremely unusual.
    – user1044
    May 1, 2012 at 12:37
  • 1
    Maybe it is the software tool that he is using that tries to be too smart? I guess the rhythm in another voice may have disturbed this one, say if another instrument does play a triplet.
    – Gauthier
    May 2, 2012 at 7:52
  • 2
    @Gauthier I doubt it's a software problem - Nepomuceno died in 1920. As for other parts interfering - the piece is written for left hand only!
    – Widor
    May 2, 2012 at 10:25
  • This is odd-looking, but I wonder if the composer was implying a finger-pedaling and to play the dotted-triplet-16ths as a legato and blended into each other without the use of any pedal? Oct 9, 2014 at 20:29
  • @Widor True, but this typesetting is from 2007. The best answer to "why?" would probably be to contact Jayme Mendonça Luna Filho who set this edition and ask him directly...
    – NReilingh
    Oct 9, 2014 at 20:57

1 Answer 1


As far as I can tell, the composer's either having a mathematical in-joke, is trying to be "too" clever, or he's just a little confused.

Either way, the short answer is that you should play/count that passage in exactly the same way as if the semiquavers (16ths) weren't dotted, and the triplet marking didn't exist.

Why? Well, let's look it it mathematically if not musically (I'll use British note names if that's ok - it's less confusing when talking about quantites and note lengths in the same sentence):

The piece is in 6/8 time and 4 of those 6 quavers are accounted for prior to the dotted semiquavers: Bar 15

So, the 4 dotted semiquavers are representing the last 2 quavers' worth of time in the bar.

The triplet marking tells us that instead of just 2 quaver divisions, we need to squeeze 3 into the same amount of time - in other words, we'd expect to have to use 6 semiquavers (= 3 quavers).
The effect of squeezing three of anything into the space of two, is that all three get reduced by a third - or multiplied by 2/3 if we're being mathematical (and we are)!

However, we only see four semiquavers in the score - but all 4 of their lengths have been increased by half again (that's what the dots mean).
Increasing "by half again" is the equivalent of multiplying by 1.5 - and 4 semiquavers x 1.5 = 6 semiquavers!

To put it even simpler, all that's happened is that we've had to reduce our quaver lengths by a third (observing the triplet marking), then immediately increased them by 50% (as per the dotted notation).

2/3 x 1.5 = 1 - in other words, we end up with exactly what we started with. The fact that we're notating the 'squeezed-then-stretched' notes using dotted semiquavers is just a distraction in trying to understand what's going on here.

I can't work out whether I think this composer's a comedy genius or the musical equivalent of the nerdy kid at school who annoyed everyone by trying to be a little too clever.

  • 2
    Nepomuceno does the same thing in measure 41 and basically the same thing again in measure 20. There is a dotted eighth and two dotted sixteenths all in one triplet which can be simplified to an eighth and two sixteenths.
    – Luke_0
    May 1, 2012 at 18:04
  • That is correct. I doubt, though, that Nepomuceno was trying to be too clever. He is a good composer. There should be an intention to emphasize the last four notes or to allow space for notes that would be played (instead of having the notes prolongued with the dots). Or a problem when transcribing the manuscript.
    – Andre
    Dec 27, 2019 at 16:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.