New answers tagged

2

This is explained in the tuplets section of the ABC standard. To code tuplets with multiple note-lengths, use the p:q:r notation. More general tuplets can be specified using the syntax (p:q:r which means 'put p notes into the time of q for the next r notes'. To render a triplet comprising a quarter-note (crotchet) and an eighth-note (quaver), you would ...


1

A better looking grouping: \relative c' { \override TupletBracket.bracket-visibility = #'if-no-beam \times 2/3 { c16 c \set stemRightBeamCount = #1 c } \times 2/3 { \set stemLeftBeamCount = #1 c c c } } yields this:


0

Maybe (just maybe) the intended interpretation is for LH's middle voice to play an eigth triplet while LH's upper voice plays four normal eigths (one of them being a rest). Meaning that E4 should be played slightly sooner and shorter than the corresponding E3 below. This would explain why the eigth rest is placed above the staff, in line with LH's upper ...


6

This is 4/4 time with triple 8th and triple quarter notes, but the triple sign is lacking in the first 2 bars shown on the beat 4 (with the triple 8th rest) and it should be notated also in the r.h. in the next measure (analogous to the l.h.) Bad lay out, unclear notation. But there’s no doubt about the intention to me. The placement of the note heads is ...


1

You don't count note durations in these bars. The way they're written makes them uncountable. Whether it's written in 4/4 or 12/8 doesn't make a lot of difference - were it written properly. Of course it will sound like 12/8 in parts - that's what the triplets do. But that's not the problem. It sounds a little (to me) at the point in question that there's a ...


7

The first (and second) bar are odd. It would add up if the first two items in the LH - the rest and the chord, were 8ths rather than quarters. A misprint, or just rule-breaking? Did the composer want a 5/4 bar? Or maybe he wants a half-bar triplet, as in bar 50. I suspect the latter. But we shouldn't have to guess. BAD composer! Apart from that bar, it ...


2

I think half the problem is the stem direction. In the first example, it's easier to read due to the differentiation due to SATB (sort of), whereas the second example squashes it all together, with differences in the 'alto' part - notwithstanding differences in timings of certain notes. The '4/4 v 12/8' question still stands, and there's absolutely no need ...


5

If you wrote it in 4/4 with frequent or constant triplets, you'd be in good company. That is how Beethoven rendered the first movement of his piano sonata number 14 ("Moonlight") and how Ravel notated "Bolero" (think of the snare rhythm). The Beethoven sonata may be a very helpful model because the first bar or two is usually notated with ...


6

The 12/8 version is absolutely standard and would give no trouble to a reasonably experienced performer. I agree that the 4/4 version is unnecessarily cluttered. It's not unusual, however, to leave out the triplet markings for groups of three eighths once the rhythm is clearly established. For example, here's an excerpt from the Mikuli edition of Chopin's ...


Top 50 recent answers are included