An oddity that doesn't seem to have come up before.
If you turn a quaver crotchet combination into a triplet then the bracket only extends as far as the crotchet, whereas Alfred shows clearly that it should extend to the end of the triplet range – i.e. as if there were three quavers.
I not only don't think that's necessary, I think it could be misleading. It could cause you to read the crochet as if it were a quaver. Remember that clarity and ease of reading for the performer is always the primary goal of good notation.
If you absolutely
must have this look:
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.74974,Single)
|Note|Dur:8th,Triplet=First|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up
|RestChord|Dur:8th,Triplet|Opts:Stem=Down,ArticulationsOnStem,HideRest|Dur2:4th|Pos2:2
|Note|Dur:8th,Triplet=End|Pos:-3z|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=0,Muted
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Play back won't be quite right, though...
William, I don't understand your comment at all. There is absolutely no danger of it looking like a quaver, and it is much more misleading to have a three quaver triplet in one part seemingly of a different length to a triplet quaver crotchet in the other.
It seemed wrong when I was transcribing it, so I looked it up in Alfred where the correct treatment is very clearly shown.
Gotta say I'm with Bill on this one. Seeing that bracket ending in the middle of nowhere would certainly have me looking for the missing whatever.
That said, I did check with Alfred's and a couple of others I found online and they all agree, but in practice I'm not sure I've ever seen it in the real world. Although, thinking about that, I'm not sure I've seen quaver/crotchet triplets in real life either... I've certainly seen crotchet/quaver ones but there would be no bracket gap for that anyway.
Here's the word from the Music Publishers' Association, as stated in their pamphlet "Standard Music Notation Practice" (Music Publishers' Association of the United States, Inc., 1966 and 1993):
I've attached a screen capture of the relevant part of the document, including the musical illustration, which shows the situation that Peter describes.
That said, and having tried it both ways in NWC, I still find quaver-crochet triplet brackets easier to read without the extension - although I can see the possibility of exceptions in particularly complex situations. And the MPA
does say "it is often necessary,"
not "it is required." I think NWC's practice is fine the way it is.