Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Tuples (I think) (Read 8233 times) previous topic - next topic

Tuples (I think)

Hi people.  I think they're called "tuples"--basically a triplet with only two notes instead of three.  This is what I need to be able to do in NWC 2.  The program obviously doesn't have that functionality, and I can't seem to come up with any ways to achieve this visibly on the printed page.  Audibly, it can be simulated with double-dotted notes, but visually.....  Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this, 'cause I'm stuck!

Thanks!

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #1 –
OK, I can get you half way there!  You need to have separate staves - an invisible one for the audio and a muted one for visual (or more, using layering).

You've already worked out the audio - dotted notes.

I'm assuming you're in compound time (see https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=4852.msg30386#msg30386), or you wouldn't need a duplet.

To get the notes right, enter a quaver, followed by a semiquaver, followed by a quaver, followed by a semiquaver.  You need to do it this way to make sure the second quaver has the correct spacing.  Beam the whole lot.  Now make both semiquavers invisible.

To get the "2", simply enter it as text.  Try centring it on the first semiquaver, but be prepared to adjust.

The bit I can't immediately see a solution for is the horizontalish square bracket.  Perhaps a there might be a suitable font?

I've recently simulated this using v then w from Boxmarks2, but you only get the opening and closing angles and they're truly horizontal - they don't follow the slope of your notes.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #2 –
Horizontalish square bracket, suitable font?

Yes, one of my own music fonts can do it. Has the left and right ends, plus extenders. Off the top of my head, I don't recall which one (and I'm not at my own computer right now). Check the Scriptorium. Might be MusiSync. Or, might be MusiQwik from my own web site. The symbols are in the upper code locations, so you'll need a character map.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #3 –
Ewan!  You're a Godsend!  I can't believe how well that turns out!  And as for the square bracketish things....  well, I've seen notation where the bracketish things aren't there (except on unbeamed notes like quarter notes) and the number (2 or 3) is simply centered on the beam of the 2 (or center of 3) notes.  I'm going to opt for that display this time, since I am working with 8th notes that are beamed.

You're right, I am in compound time (12/8).  I appreciate your linking to the brief terminology lesson; that was helpful to me.

Thank you, Ewan.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #4 –
You're welcome.  We're not known as one of the friendliest [abbr=or "fora" if you'd rather]forums[/abbr] on the web for nothing!

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #5 –
Re: Reply 4 LOL!!  I read the finicky thread you're referring to.  Hope non-Latin majors like me won't get our heads bitten off for incorrect plurals.  Or is that "plura"?  :)

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #6 –
Sigh, yes, Milton, I suppose you're right.  There are some people who post negative comments.  But the rest of us try to be helpful and supportive.

P.S.  I don't really care what language you use for [abbr="plurals" for most of us]plura/pluri/pluralen[/abbr] or how many apo'strophe's you put into a word - so long as you can make yourself understood.  I usually prefer plain English, but try to respect that other people might have different ideas about what is correct.  I sometimes even get it right.

Cheers

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #7 –
It is also well to look with a smile on those given to gratuitous displays of erudition: they're only having a harmless good time.  Besides, learning a little Latin or learning a little obscure English grammar doesn't hurt. Always put the best construction on these things, and you can't go wrong.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #8 –
It's harmless good time, unless they express it in such a way that it looks like they're asking a music-related or NWC-related question.  I got burnt helping somebody a few days ago, when he were just being grammapicky.  I resent someone else wasting my time, I like to waste it myself.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #9 –
Bet "he" picks up on the errers in these messges two, huh?

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #10 –
Now you're just being a jerk...

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #11 –
Yeah, you're right.  I didn't need to be nasty.  My errors in reply 8 were actually just carelessness.  Reply 9 was deliberate, pointing out my own errors which I discovered as soon as I went back to the page, but there was no need to take a shot at you.  Please accept my apology.

Let's call off the battle before it starts, and enjoy the forum again.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #12 –
Thank you for "owning up."
You don't see a lot of that these days.
I suppose I also should apologize for my "grammapickiness."
It's just that I see our language maimed day after day, and after a while, I just can't take it anymore...

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #13 –
I notice the errors too, but being guilty of them myself, I accept them as long as I can understand the message.  A lot of people can't type well, lots of us don't proofread our material as often as we should, proofreading on the screen is difficult anyway, and some of our forum members don't have an English dialect as (his/her/their?) mother tongue.

My favourite error is "its" versus "it's."

The frustrating thing is that I am not a great typist, and then, if there's a background memory eater running, the keystrokes sometimes always make it to the program I'm typing in.  At least that's my excuse.

C'mon over to http://Ellingtonweb.ca and take your mind off all this language stuff for a while.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #14 –
oops

sometimes don't always...

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #15 –
A nice new addition to typos came in the Newsgroups.
Do this, do that, and viola!
A very musical misspelling.

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #16 –
Wow!  That Ellington website is PACKED with stuff!
Thanks for the link!
 

Re: Tuples (I think)

Reply #17 –
Rob, that's atrocious!

C'mon, thanks.  Enjoy.