The term "tuplets"

[Aharon Lavie]

I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

[unglued]

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

It's a mathematical term:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderedTuplet.html

[Brad Beyenhof]

Post by unglued

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it
a legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderedTuplet.html

The term is also used in the notation program Finale (the "Tuplet Tool")
when creating the above-mentioned patterns. I don't engrave with
Sibelius, but I wouldn't be surprised if it used the term as well.

[Tom Korth]

Post by Brad Beyenhof

Post by unglued

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other non-binary
note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New Harvard
Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it
a legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderedTuplet.html

The term is also used in the notation program Finale (the "Tuplet Tool")
when creating the above-mentioned patterns. I don't engrave with
Sibelius, but I wouldn't be surprised if it used the term as well.

It does.

Tom

[Richard White]

The first I heard the term was when I began using computer 'engraving'
software in 1994.

Richard White

[Matthew Fields]

Post by Richard White
The first I heard the term was when I began using computer 'engraving'
software in 1994.
Richard White

Most people who deal with notated music never encounter tuplets
other than triplets, and on ocassion maybe duplets. So they have no need
for the term. Those of us who enjoy sextuplets and quintuplets and
the odd rapid run with an extra note or two wedged in (often notated
as e.g a 17-let) have long accepted the term "tuplet", using the same
borrowing from mathematical set theory which gave us "triplet".

[Richard White]

In article

Post by Richard White
The first I heard the term was when I began using computer 'engraving'
software in 1994.
Richard White

Most people who deal with notated music never encounter tuplets
other than triplets, and on ocassion maybe duplets. So they have no need
for the term. Those of us who enjoy sextuplets and quintuplets and
the odd rapid run with an extra note or two wedged in (often notated
as e.g a 17-let) have long accepted the term "tuplet", using the same
borrowing from mathematical set theory which gave us "triplet".

I wouldn't know about most people. I used my first quintuplet as well as
septuplet in 1964 in the Gloria of my first Mass for SATB and small wind
ensemble and I enjoyed it very much; I was in the thrall of Stravinsky's
'Mass' at the time. Accepting a term (or being aware of it, for that
matter) and using the technique described therein are not the same.

Richard White

[Steve Latham]

Post by Richard White
I wouldn't know about most people. I used my first quintuplet as well as
septuplet in 1964 in the Gloria of my first Mass for SATB and small wind
ensemble and I enjoyed it very much; I was in the thrall of Stravinsky's
'Mass' at the time. Accepting a term (or being aware of it, for that
matter) and using the technique described therein are not the same.

Sure, but we were talking about the terms usage, not the element for which
the term was created. We should be calling lots of stuff hemiola and other
things if that's the case!

:-)

Steve

[Melodious Thunk]

In article

Post by Richard White
The first I heard the term was when I began using computer 'engraving'
software in 1994.
Richard White

Most people who deal with notated music never encounter tuplets
other than triplets, and on ocassion maybe duplets. So they have no need
for the term.

In piano music, various tuplets have been standard notation for a couple hundred years.
I thought it was universal (in "western" music).

Those of us who enjoy sextuplets and quintuplets and
the odd rapid run with an extra note or two wedged in (often notated
as e.g a 17-let) have long accepted the term "tuplet", using the same
borrowing from mathematical set theory which gave us "triplet".

[Richard White]

Post by Melodious Thunk

In article

Post by Richard White
The first I heard the term was when I began using computer 'engraving'
software in 1994.
Richard White

Most people who deal with notated music never encounter tuplets
other than triplets, and on ocassion maybe duplets. So they have no need
for the term.

In piano music, various tuplets have been standard notation for a couple hundred years.
I thought it was universal (in "western" music).

Those of us who enjoy sextuplets and quintuplets and
the odd rapid run with an extra note or two wedged in (often notated
as e.g a 17-let) have long accepted the term "tuplet", using the same
borrowing from mathematical set theory which gave us "triplet".

It isn't the practice or existence of "tuplets" that I was referring to,
but the term itself. But now, even, after eleven years of usage, it's old
hat, even to this old-timer.

My contribution to the above was only this: "The first I heard the term
(tuplets) was when I began using computer 'engraving' software in 1994."

Richard White

[Steve Latham]

Just a pleasant reminder,
we were discussing when the term "tuplet" applying to divisions other than
the prevailing divisions of the meter came into being - not when musicians
starting using those irregular divisions - which is probably when music
started (or at least when meter became established, but that's another
topic).

Steve

Post by Melodious Thunk
In piano music, various tuplets have been standard notation for a couple hundred years.
I thought it was universal (in "western" music).

Not the "thing" the term "tuplet" for the broad category of those things.

[Melodious Thunk]

Post by Steve Latham
Just a pleasant reminder,
we were discussing when the term "tuplet" applying to divisions other than
the prevailing divisions of the meter came into being - not when musicians
starting using those irregular divisions - which is probably when music
started (or at least when meter became established, but that's another
topic).
Steve

Post by Melodious Thunk
In piano music, various tuplets have been standard notation for a couple hundred years.
I thought it was universal (in "western" music).

Not the "thing" the term "tuplet" for the broad category of those things.

Yeah my error, I misunderstood.

I learned music so long ago that I just don't know when I started using "tuplet" in place of
stuff like "nine-tuplet" or "eleven-tuplet" for the odd ones. In fact, for the really extended
ones (like Beethoven was so fond of) I simply remember calling 'em "those !@#$% cadenzas!"

(Heh. Or is there a German term for 'em?)

[Nightingale]

Post by Melodious Thunk
I learned music so long ago that I just don't know when I started using "tuplet" in place of
stuff like "nine-tuplet" or "eleven-tuplet" for the odd ones. In fact, for the really extended
(Heh. Or is there a German term for 'em?)

!@$% Kadenzen!

[Matthew Fields]

Post by Melodious Thunk

Post by Melodious Thunk
I learned music so long ago that I just don't know when I started

using "tuplet" in place of

Post by Melodious Thunk
stuff like "nine-tuplet" or "eleven-tuplet" for the odd ones. In fact,

for the really extended

Post by Melodious Thunk
ones (like Beethoven was so fond of) I simply remember calling 'em
(Heh. Or is there a German term for 'em?)

"***@c|-|enden", vielleicht?

[Nightingale]

Post by Melodious Thunk

Post by Melodious Thunk
I learned music so long ago that I just don't know when I started

using "tuplet" in place of

Post by Melodious Thunk
stuff like "nine-tuplet" or "eleven-tuplet" for the odd ones. In fact,

for the really extended

Post by Melodious Thunk
ones (like Beethoven was so fond of) I simply remember calling 'em
(Heh. Or is there a German term for 'em?)

LOL!

[Charlton Wilbur]

MF> Those of us who enjoy sextuplets and quintuplets and the odd
MF> rapid run with an extra note or two wedged in (often notated
MF> as e.g a 17-let) have long accepted the term "tuplet", using
MF> the same borrowing from mathematical set theory which gave us
MF> "triplet".

One of my favorite academic music jokes:

Q. How many New Complexity composers does it take to change a light bulb?

(scroll down)


























A. Eleven, but they do it in the time of seven.

Charlton

[David Webber]

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

I think its ubiquitous use probably legitimises it by definition.
That's the way language works.

I say this despite the fact that I grew up with a science where
doublets and triplets are "multiplets". It's a word I personally
much prefer in the musical context also - but I may be alone :-(

In physics one has "octets" and "nonets" in place of what in music
might be called "octuplets" and "?????" respectively but
"decuplets" are the same. On the question of 9: I have never
heard "nonuplet" (in place of physics's "nonet") which would be
logical, but I *have* heard (the truly ghastly) "nine-tuplet". :-(

Of course physics has the luxury of not having to distinguish its
words from the number of people in the band :-)

Dave

[Steve Latham]

I think its ubiquitous use probably legitimises it by definition. That's
the way language works.

Like mode. Ok, Sorry David, I couldn't resist!

In good fun, Steve

[johnny]

It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving.
Must come from -tuple, as quin-tuple.

JJ

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

[Steve Latham]

Post by johnny
It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving.
Must come from -tuple, as quin-tuple.
JJ

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

For Aharon, I don't hear anyone calling them anything othr than Tuplets any
more, except when referring to a specific number. Kostka/Payne mention
"grouplets" but I think they've been out-voted by the popularity of Finale
and the term in general. I wonder what Kurt Stone has.

By the way, I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but it works for
binary divisions too (most likely used in compound meters):

Duplet (2 in the time of 3)
Quadruplet (etc.)
Sextuplet (referred to in some circles as double triplets, but I'm hearing
less and less of that term. Must be the wanton ways of society creeping in)
Octuplet (I've heard Octatuplet on rare occaision)

etc.

Steve

[Brad Beyenhof]

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as
a general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The
New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing
2001) I wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music
slang or is it a legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving. Must come
from -tuple, as quin-tuple.

For Aharon, I don't hear anyone calling them anything othr than
Tuplets any more, except when referring to a specific number.
Kostka/Payne mention "grouplets" but I think they've been out-voted
by the popularity of Finale and the term in general. I wonder what
Kurt Stone has.

Kurt Stone calls them "Irregular Note Divisions (pp. 41, 129). Gardner
Read calls them "unequal groups"/"unequal units" (throughout Chapter
11). Ted Ross merely heads his section "The Triplet" (p. 159) but then
refers to "other [similar] note-groupings" (p. 164).

By the dates of the above references (the latest of which, Ross, was
published in 1987), I tend to assume that the term "tuplet" began its
adoption after personal computers became widespread. This is merely
conjecture, but it seems natural that -- once computers began to be used
for music notation -- programmers began to infuse their mathematical
terminology into the interfaces of the notation programs that they wrote.

However, I see no problem with combining the vocabulary of various
disciplines. In fact, I encourage it, since it would be ludicrous for
the studious to have to learn a whole new vocabulary for each subject
with which they'd like to become familiar.

[Brad Beyenhof]

Post by Brad Beyenhof

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets"
as a general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and
other non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed
in The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth
printing 2001) I wonder about its formal status. Is this just a
music slang or is it a legitimate term in the formal music
terminology?

It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving. Must
come from -tuple, as quin-tuple.

For Aharon, I don't hear anyone calling them anything othr than
Tuplets any more, except when referring to a specific number.
Kostka/Payne mention "grouplets" but I think they've been out-voted
by the popularity of Finale and the term in general. I wonder what
Kurt Stone has.

Kurt Stone calls them "Irregular Note Divisions (pp. 41, 129).
Gardner Read calls them "unequal groups"/"unequal units" (throughout
Chapter 11). Ted Ross merely heads his section "The Triplet" (p. 159)
but then refers to "other [similar] note-groupings" (p. 164).
By the dates of the above references (the latest of which, Ross, was
published in 1987), I tend to assume that the term "tuplet" began its
adoption after personal computers became widespread. This is merely
conjecture, but it seems natural that -- once computers began to be
used for music notation -- programmers began to infuse their
mathematical terminology into the interfaces of the notation programs
that they wrote.
However, I see no problem with combining the vocabulary of various
disciplines. In fact, I encourage it, since it would be ludicrous for
the studious to have to learn a whole new vocabulary for each
subject with which they'd like to become familiar.

I forgot to check all my notation references. The "Essential Dictionary
of Music Notation" (Tom Gerou, 1996) *does* have an entry called
"tuplets." In fact, The entry for "triplets" refers the reader to look
instead under "tuplets."

I suppose this could support my theory about computer notation software,
as Finale and other such tools made their first appearances in the early
90's.

[Steve Latham]

Post by Brad Beyenhof
I suppose this could support my theory about computer notation software,
as Finale and other such tools made their first appearances in the early
90's.

I think there's a lot to that theory Brad. The widespread use of Finale
probably usurped any amount of texts that musicians would have actually read
regarding notation! In fact, despite the sad state of notation in general
(like my students don't even know in what order to put the sharps in a
traditional key signature) I do have to credit Finale and other notation
packages with re-introducing musicians to notation in general (despite the
fact that some aspects may have negative effects - like spell checkers in
word processing have virtually created a society of students who can not
only not spell, but who can't even remember to spell check before
printing!).

Thanks for all that research on the term by the way!

Steve

[beau gustave]

Post by Brad Beyenhof

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as
a general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The
New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing
2001) I wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music
slang or is it a legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving. Must come
from -tuple, as quin-tuple.

For Aharon, I don't hear anyone calling them anything othr than
Tuplets any more, except when referring to a specific number.
Kostka/Payne mention "grouplets" but I think they've been out-voted
by the popularity of Finale and the term in general. I wonder what
Kurt Stone has.

Kurt Stone calls them "Irregular Note Divisions (pp. 41, 129). Gardner
Read calls them "unequal groups"/"unequal units" (throughout Chapter
11). Ted Ross merely heads his section "The Triplet" (p. 159) but then
refers to "other [similar] note-groupings" (p. 164).
By the dates of the above references (the latest of which, Ross, was
published in 1987),

Ted Ross died in 1975. 1987 is a later edition.

Post by Brad Beyenhof
I tend to assume that the term "tuplet" began its
adoption after personal computers became widespread. This is merely
conjecture, but it seems natural that -- once computers began to be used
for music notation -- programmers began to infuse their mathematical
terminology into the interfaces of the notation programs that they wrote.

Th e G. Schirmer Manual (1990) uses "tuplet," and is about notation,
without reference to computers. I think it was available in earlier editions,
too, but I don;t know what term was used. Alas in the 1950s I had a manual
on notation and musical penmanship by a Hollywood copyist. It was quite
good, as I recall.

Post by Brad Beyenhof
However, I see no problem with combining the vocabulary of various
disciplines. In fact, I encourage it, since it would be ludicrous for
the studious to have to learn a whole new vocabulary for each subject
with which they'd like to become familiar.
--
Brad Beyenhof
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com

[Michael Haslam]

Post by Steve Latham
By the way, I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but it works for
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I don't know why I never thought of this before, but duplets are
normally called twins :-)

Post by Steve Latham
Quadruplet (etc.)
Sextuplet (referred to in some circles as double triplets, but I'm hearing
less and less of that term. Must be the wanton ways of society creeping in)
Octuplet (I've heard Octatuplet on rare occaision)

Double triplet isn't always the same as a sextuplet, which may be
structured as three+three or two+two+two.

[Steve Latham]

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by Steve Latham
By the way, I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but it works for
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I don't know why I never thought of this before, but duplets are
normally called twins :-)

Now that I've never hear in music - except for maybe "enharmonic twin" (or
more often, enharmonic double - but wouldn't enharmonic doppelganger be more
fun!)

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by Steve Latham
Quadruplet (etc.)
Sextuplet (referred to in some circles as double triplets, but I'm hearing
less and less of that term. Must be the wanton ways of society creeping in)
Octuplet (I've heard Octatuplet on rare occaision)

Double triplet isn't always the same as a sextuplet, which may be
structured as three+three or two+two+two.

I've always seen that term used specifically for a group of six without beam
breaks, or when it's 3+3. I don't recall seeing the other, but it's
certainly possibile (i.e. a triple with every stroke doubled). I think the
term double triplet's ambiguity has probably been part of the reason a
"better" and more consisitent term like sextuplet has stuck

Steve

[Adam Bravo]

Post by Steve Latham

Post by johnny
It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving.
Must come from -tuple, as quin-tuple.
JJ

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

For Aharon, I don't hear anyone calling them anything othr than Tuplets any
more, except when referring to a specific number. Kostka/Payne mention
"grouplets" but I think they've been out-voted by the popularity of Finale
and the term in general. I wonder what Kurt Stone has.
By the way, I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but it works for
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)
Quadruplet (etc.)
Sextuplet (referred to in some circles as double triplets, but I'm hearing
less and less of that term. Must be the wanton ways of society creeping in)
Octuplet (I've heard Octatuplet on rare occaision)

I'm beginnign to hear a lot more "n-tuplets," like "six-tuplets" or even
just let: "5-let." I wonder if some day musicians won't be taking about
3-lets.

[Simon Smith]

Post by Adam Bravo
I'm beginnign to hear a lot more "n-tuplets," like "six-tuplets" or even
just let: "5-let." I wonder if some day musicians won't be taking about
3-lets.

A teacher of mine (who was completely mad, but in a good way) would say
'fivelet' and 'sevenlet' and so on all time, which I've inherited from him,
much to the confusion of my colleagues on occasion. But frankly it's clearer
to say '15-let' then 'quindecatuplet' (or whatever it might be) :)

I also remember the first edition of the Sibelius manual all those years ago
(1993, I suppose) which talked about 'tuplets' and commented that the term
was preferable to 'irrational rhythms', or some such.

[Aharon Lavie]

Post by Steve Latham

Post by johnny
It;s a common term used in music notation and engraving.
Must come from -tuple, as quin-tuple.
JJ

Post by Aharon Lavie
I have seen somewhere (probably on the net) the term "tuplets" as a
general term for triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, and other
non-binary note durations. Since the term is not listed in The New
Harvard Dictionary of Music (Copyright 1986, tenth printing 2001) I
wonder about its formal status. Is this just a music slang or is it a
legitimate term in the formal music terminology?

For Aharon, I don't hear anyone calling them anything othr than Tuplets any
more, except when referring to a specific number. Kostka/Payne mention
"grouplets" but I think they've been out-voted by the popularity of Finale
and the term in general. I wonder what Kurt Stone has.
By the way, I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but it works for
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I remember seeing those in a score where two notes filled a 3/8 bar.
The number 2 was above the beam connecting the two notes. I also
remember two things that puzzled me about it at the time:
1. The same could have been achieved by means of dotted notes.
2. While a triplet squeezes three notes into the space of two, the
duplet did the opposite, expanding two notes into the space of three.

Post by Steve Latham
Quadruplet (etc.)
Sextuplet (referred to in some circles as double triplets, but I'm hearing
less and less of that term. Must be the wanton ways of society creeping in)
Octuplet (I've heard Octatuplet on rare occaision)
etc.
Steve

[Michael Haslam]

Post by Aharon Lavie

Post by Steve Latham
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I remember seeing those in a score where two notes filled a 3/8 bar.
The number 2 was above the beam connecting the two notes. I also
1. The same could have been achieved by means of dotted notes.
2. While a triplet squeezes three notes into the space of two, the
duplet did the opposite, expanding two notes into the space of three.

I have seen this issue addressed on, I think, the Graphire Music Press
computer notation program website. The "correct" form is more honoured
in the breach than the observance, IIRC.

[jay jay]

Which is the "correct" way? Of course bracketed two (duplet) would be the opposite
of a triplet, two equal notes in the time of three. The dotted note solution (2
dotted eighths) suggests the second note is a syncopation, since it falls on
"and" of beat two. So they are really quite dfferent.

Wonder what the folks at Graphire thought.

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by Aharon Lavie

Post by Steve Latham
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I remember seeing those in a score where two notes filled a 3/8 bar.
The number 2 was above the beam connecting the two notes. I also
1. The same could have been achieved by means of dotted notes.
2. While a triplet squeezes three notes into the space of two, the
duplet did the opposite, expanding two notes into the space of three.

I have seen this issue addressed on, I think, the Graphire Music Press
computer notation program website. The "correct" form is more honoured
in the breach than the observance, IIRC.
--
MJHaslam MA, ARCO, LGSM

[Michael Haslam]

Post by jay jay

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by Aharon Lavie

Post by Steve Latham
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I remember seeing those in a score where two notes filled a 3/8 bar.
The number 2 was above the beam connecting the two notes. I also
1. The same could have been achieved by means of dotted notes.
2. While a triplet squeezes three notes into the space of two, the
duplet did the opposite, expanding two notes into the space of three.

I have seen this issue addressed on, I think, the Graphire Music Press
computer notation program website. The "correct" form is more honoured
in the breach than the observance, IIRC.

Which is the "correct" way? Of course bracketed two (duplet) would be the
opposite of a triplet, two equal notes in the time of three. The dotted
note solution (2 dotted eighths) suggests the second note is a
syncopation, since it falls on "and" of beat two. So they are really
quite dfferent.

[Topposting corrected]

I didn't mean "correct" to refer to duplet versus dotted note; rather
the value of the notes in the duplet: whether they are longer or shorter
than the un-dupletted form.

Post by jay jay
Wonder what the folks at Graphire thought.

This is stolen from their website:

What is the correct note value of a dotted eighth note duplet (two
eighths in the space of three eighths)?

There is considerable controversy over the correct way to notate this
duplet. The technically correct way is according to the same rule as
other tuplets, which says that a note can only be shortened, never
lengthened. This implies that, for instance, 3 notes in a quarter are
eighths, but 5 in a quarter are 16ths. This rule implies that 2 notes in
a dotted quarter are quarters. This system is consistent, sensible, and
is recommended by Stone, Roemer, and Rosenthal.

However, common practice is to notate 2 in 3/8 as eighth notes. One
possible explanation is that the player's eye is used to seeing a
quarter divided into eighths, regardless of whether it has a dot.
(Sewell) This method is recommended by Read and Ross. The most serious
problem with this is that a given note value (say, a dotted half) can be
divided into 2 quarters or 4 quarters. This seems to me to be wrong by
definition, not to mention confusing. (Talbot)

[Charlton Wilbur]

MH> This is stolen from their website:

MH> What is the correct note value of a dotted eighth note duplet
MH> (two eighths in the space of three eighths)?

MH> There is considerable controversy over the correct way to
MH> notate this duplet. The technically correct way is according
MH> to the same rule as other tuplets, which says that a note can
MH> only be shortened, never lengthened.

Which is not consistent with any sort of practice I've ever seen. The
most obvious example I can think of is in the Bach Toccata & Fugue in
D minor: the dominant subdivision is triple, but there are beats when
it is duple, and this is indicated in every edition I've ever seen by
a difference in beaming. (I don't recall offhand what the notated
meter is, however; it could be that the notated meter has duple
subdivisions, and the triple groupings are notated triplets with an
omitted "3.")

More recently, I've seen explict markings such as "2:3" over beams or
grouping brackets, to indicate "2 of these in the time it would take
to play 3." I think in that case the sensible thing to do would be to
keep the subdivision-value as close as possible (in other words, 5:4
is preferable to 5:2) and notate it with the subdivision-value of the
second note. If you're trying to play 3 quarter notes in the time of
2 quarter notes, you notate quarter notes; if you're trying to play 2
quarter notes in the time of 3 quarter notes, you notate quarter
notes.

If I were actually dealing with this, I'd probably stick to what my
notation program did, on the hopeful assumption that they had
consulted a notation manual; if I were doing it by hand, I'd probably
go to the effort of consulting a notation manual myself.

Charlton

[Steve Latham]

Yes, and this is where the "ratio" numerals are becoming much more useful in
these otherwise ambiguous situations. Unfortunately, they've not caught on
everywhere yet.

Steve

Post by Charlton Wilbur
MH> What is the correct note value of a dotted eighth note duplet
MH> (two eighths in the space of three eighths)?
MH> There is considerable controversy over the correct way to
MH> notate this duplet. The technically correct way is according
MH> to the same rule as other tuplets, which says that a note can
MH> only be shortened, never lengthened.
Which is not consistent with any sort of practice I've ever seen. The
most obvious example I can think of is in the Bach Toccata & Fugue in
D minor: the dominant subdivision is triple, but there are beats when
it is duple, and this is indicated in every edition I've ever seen by
a difference in beaming. (I don't recall offhand what the notated
meter is, however; it could be that the notated meter has duple
subdivisions, and the triple groupings are notated triplets with an
omitted "3.")
More recently, I've seen explict markings such as "2:3" over beams or
grouping brackets, to indicate "2 of these in the time it would take
to play 3." I think in that case the sensible thing to do would be to
keep the subdivision-value as close as possible (in other words, 5:4
is preferable to 5:2) and notate it with the subdivision-value of the
second note. If you're trying to play 3 quarter notes in the time of
2 quarter notes, you notate quarter notes; if you're trying to play 2
quarter notes in the time of 3 quarter notes, you notate quarter
notes.
If I were actually dealing with this, I'd probably stick to what my
notation program did, on the hopeful assumption that they had
consulted a notation manual; if I were doing it by hand, I'd probably
go to the effort of consulting a notation manual myself.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com

[beau gustave]

I think I woujld prefer the "usual" eighth-note duplet in 6/8 to replace 3 eighths,
as advocated by Ross and Gerou/Lusk. Stone's bracketed 2 quarters seems strange
to my eye. G. Schirmer cites Ross's way, but says it is better to use Matt's way, that is
two beamed dotted eighths (which seems like syncopation to me).

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by jay jay

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by Aharon Lavie

Post by Steve Latham
Duplet (2 in the time of 3)

I remember seeing those in a score where two notes filled a 3/8 bar.
The number 2 was above the beam connecting the two notes. I also
1. The same could have been achieved by means of dotted notes.
2. While a triplet squeezes three notes into the space of two, the
duplet did the opposite, expanding two notes into the space of three.

I have seen this issue addressed on, I think, the Graphire Music Press
computer notation program website. The "correct" form is more honoured
in the breach than the observance, IIRC.

Which is the "correct" way? Of course bracketed two (duplet) would be the
opposite of a triplet, two equal notes in the time of three. The dotted
note solution (2 dotted eighths) suggests the second note is a
syncopation, since it falls on "and" of beat two. So they are really
quite dfferent.

[Topposting corrected]
I didn't mean "correct" to refer to duplet versus dotted note; rather
the value of the notes in the duplet: whether they are longer or shorter
than the un-dupletted form.

I think it is standard parctice with duplets, to use two eighth notes with
a "2" above the beam. I wonder how widespread in actual scores
is the notation put forth by Stone et al. I think you'll see an 8th-note duplet
agains three 8th notes in compund meters.

Post by Michael Haslam

Post by jay jay
Wonder what the folks at Graphire thought.

What is the correct note value of a dotted eighth note duplet (two
eighths in the space of three eighths)?
There is considerable controversy over the correct way to notate this
duplet. The technically correct way is according to the same rule as
other tuplets, which says that a note can only be shortened, never
lengthened. This implies that, for instance, 3 notes in a quarter are
eighths, but 5 in a quarter are 16ths. This rule implies that 2 notes in
a dotted quarter are quarters. This system is consistent, sensible, and
is recommended by Stone, Roemer, and Rosenthal.
However, common practice is to notate 2 in 3/8 as eighth notes. One
possible explanation is that the player's eye is used to seeing a
quarter divided into eighths, regardless of whether it has a dot.
(Sewell) This method is recommended by Read and Ross. The most serious
problem with this is that a given note value (say, a dotted half) can be
divided into 2 quarters or 4 quarters. This seems to me to be wrong by
definition, not to mention confusing. (Talbot)
--
MJHaslam MA, ARCO, LGSM

[Steve Latham]

Post by Michael Haslam
However, common practice is to notate 2 in 3/8 as eighth notes. One
possible explanation is that the player's eye is used to seeing a
quarter divided into eighths, regardless of whether it has a dot.
(Sewell) This method is recommended by Read and Ross. The most serious
problem with this is that a given note value (say, a dotted half) can be
divided into 2 quarters or 4 quarters. This seems to me to be wrong by
definition, not to mention confusing. (Talbot)

Ok, this is what I thought with the Read.

Again, I think (IIRC) they are basing it on the principle of the BEAT, not
the actual note value. I could be wrong.
There is of course a visual advantage with any beaming for instrumentalists
as a visual clue that two notes belong within the same beat or group.

I think there might also be some confluence as to what beams the notes would
have if they were the dotted versions that could naturally occur in 3/8.
1/8dot 1/8dot would be two in one beat.
1/16dot 1/16dot 1/16dot 1/16dot would be four in the time of one beat.

So the duplet gets an 8th beam, the quadruplet gets 16th beams (even though
it hasn't "crossed" the "normal" value (6 per beat) that would get 16th
beams in this meter.
So all the divisions in 3/8, in number of events per beat:
1 = 1/4dot
2 = 1/8 note tuplet
3 = 1/8
4 = 1/16 note tuplet
5 = 1/16 note quintuplet
6 = 1/16
7 = 1/16 note septuplet (I think)
8 = 1/32 note octuplet
etc.
Confirm or Deny?
This is what I seem to recall, but it's been a while since I've read the
Read (:-) thoroughly.

Steve

[Matthew Fields]

Septuplets regularly occur 7 in the time of 8, not 4. The general rule
is the nearest rounding, not always rounding down or up.

When I've needed duplets, I've always used dotted notes--BEAMED
in the next-higher units.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Matthew Fields
Septuplets regularly occur 7 in the time of 8, not 4. The general rule
is the nearest rounding, not always rounding down or up.

That is by no means a general rule - both are about equally common.
Although I always use a full ratio except when I am really crunched for
space and only triplets are involved, I myself prefer to always keep
tuplet durations faster than the "standard" - i.e. 7 in 4, not 8.

evan

[Matthew Fields]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matthew Fields
Septuplets regularly occur 7 in the time of 8, not 4. The general

rule

Post by Matthew Fields
is the nearest rounding, not always rounding down or up.

That is by no means a general rule - both are about equally common.
Although I always use a full ratio except when I am really crunched for
space and only triplets are involved, I myself prefer to always keep
tuplet durations faster than the "standard" - i.e. 7 in 4, not 8.

This is counterintuitive to the eye--something that looks like an
eighth note but is closer to a 16th-note. But if it works for you, enjoy!

[Aharon Lavie]

The dotted note solution (2 dotted eighths) suggests the
second note is a syncopation, since it falls on
"and" of beat two. So they are really quite dfferent.

I do not get it. The second note starts in the middle of the beat and
continues till the end of the following beat regardless of which
notation is used. How does one notation suggest "a syncopation" while
the other does not? Where is the difference?

[Steve Latham]

Post by Aharon Lavie

The dotted note solution (2 dotted eighths) suggests the
second note is a syncopation, since it falls on
"and" of beat two. So they are really quite dfferent.

I do not get it. The second note starts in the middle of the beat and
continues till the end of the following beat regardless of which
notation is used. How does one notation suggest "a syncopation" while
the other does not? Where is the difference?

This is what I was mentioning before. Some people feel that the two
notations imply different things and should even be performed "differently"
(or at least, thought about in that way).

With a duplet, the "feel" is two notes in the time of a measure (assume
3/8). It's like shifting between two and three events (assume alternation)
per measure, where the measure is the constant unit.

With the dotted version, the second note is metrically in the same spot, but
since it is in a "syncopated" position, it should "feel" that way. That is,
it happens on a usually unaccented part of the division. The former, is not
on an unaccented spot, because you're basically changing the meter to a
simple meter that happens to have the same measure length.

But you're right - they're the same. It may be close to arguing whether
decrescendo and diminuendo are different, and if ritardando and rallentando
are different. Depends on how nit-picky you want to be.

I will say this, in a simple presentation, where the 2 and 3 are
alternating, I prefer to see the duplets. I know immediately what they are.
The only time I prefer the dotted note versions are when the surrounding
beats or measure also have a lot of those values - like if I had, in 6/8:
E(dot) S S S E(dot) S S S - I'd want to see a duple group to appear E(dot)
E (dot) (especially rather than using ties).

But if it was:
E E E E E E I'd much rather see a Duplet (E_E) - But that's just me.

Steve.

[Aharon Lavie]

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Aharon Lavie

The dotted note solution (2 dotted eighths) suggests the
second note is a syncopation, since it falls on
"and" of beat two. So they are really quite dfferent.

I do not get it. The second note starts in the middle of the beat and
continues till the end of the following beat regardless of which
notation is used. How does one notation suggest "a syncopation" while
the other does not? Where is the difference?

This is what I was mentioning before. Some people feel that the two
notations imply different things and should even be performed "differently"
(or at least, thought about in that way).
With a duplet, the "feel" is two notes in the time of a measure (assume
3/8). It's like shifting between two and three events (assume alternation)
per measure, where the measure is the constant unit.
With the dotted version, the second note is metrically in the same spot, but
since it is in a "syncopated" position, it should "feel" that way. That is,
it happens on a usually unaccented part of the division. The former, is not
on an unaccented spot, because you're basically changing the meter to a
simple meter that happens to have the same measure length.
But you're right - they're the same. It may be close to arguing whether
decrescendo and diminuendo are different, and if ritardando and rallentando
are different. Depends on how nit-picky you want to be.
I will say this, in a simple presentation, where the 2 and 3 are
alternating, I prefer to see the duplets. I know immediately what they are.
The only time I prefer the dotted note versions are when the surrounding
E(dot) S S S E(dot) S S S - I'd want to see a duple group to appear E(dot)
E (dot) (especially rather than using ties).
E E E E E E I'd much rather see a Duplet (E_E) - But that's just me.
Steve.
The difference is in the counting.
Two eighth notes beamed together with a "2" indicates ONE AND, just plain equal notes.
The two eighth notes indicates ONE(two) AND (three), a syncopation.
But G. Schirmer seems to think they are the same. I think there's a subt;le diference
there, one that might (or might not) be reflected in the performance. I'm just
splitting hairs, methinks. But I don;'t see them as being the same. They would
surely indicate different rhythms in, say, a Bartok quartet. In other words, if there
is a significant difference, it depends on context and the composer's intent.

Thank you, Steve and Jay, for your explanation. If I understand it
correctly each notation has different implication regarding the tonal
accent. I get the impression that while the dotted notes retain the
signature meter, the duplet notation implicitly modifies it for the
period of its duration. As an analogy to the latter, I think of
situations where different instruments in an ensemble explicitly play
together according to different meters, e.g., the Introduction and
Rondo Capriccioso by Camille Saint-Saens, where the solo violin
switches the meter to 2/4 while the orchestra continues playing at the
original meter of 6/8.

Steve, you say "nit-picky", and I agree with you. With so much
allowance given to the interpretation by the performer, such tiny
details are parts of this flexibility. When a financier provides
leeway in dollars there is no point worrying about pennies.

[jay]

The difference is in the counting.

Two eighth notes beamed together with a "2" indicates ONE AND, just plain equal notes.

The two eighth notes indicates ONE(two) AND (three), a syncopation.

But G. Schirmer seems to think they are the same. I think there's a subt;le diference
there, one that might (or might not) be reflected in the performance. I'm just
splitting hairs, methinks. But I don;'t see them as being the same. They would
surely indicate different rhythms in, say, a Bartok quartet. In other words, if there
is a significant difference, it depends on context and the composer's intent.

Post by Aharon Lavie

The dotted note solution (2 dotted eighths) suggests the
second note is a syncopation, since it falls on
"and" of beat two. So they are really quite dfferent.

I do not get it. The second note starts in the middle of the beat and
continues till the end of the following beat regardless of which
notation is used. How does one notation suggest "a syncopation" while
the other does not? Where is the difference?

[Steve Latham]

Post by Aharon Lavie
I remember seeing those in a score where two notes filled a 3/8 bar.
The number 2 was above the beam connecting the two notes. I also
1. The same could have been achieved by means of dotted notes.

Ah, you got it! I was waiting for this. Yes, in compound meter, binary
divisions can be represented with dotted notes!
Some even argue that a duplet in 6/8 is performed differently than the same
dotted note values (both 2 in the time of 3)!

Post by Aharon Lavie
2. While a triplet squeezes three notes into the space of two, the
duplet did the opposite, expanding two notes into the space of three.

Right, and this causes a problem with some of the more odd-numbered
divisions because it means figuring out how many beams to use may be
ambiguous in some cases. The thing is, while we think of them as 3 8th notes
in the time of 2, it's really 3 8th notes in a BEAT where the normal
division is 8th notes.

In compound meter, if the division is normally an 8th note, like 6/8, the
duplet is still happening within a beat that is represented by a quarter
note (even though dotted), so the borrowed 2 division gets eighth notes (so
basically, you're treating the BEAT in 6/8 - a dotted quarter note - as if
it was the BEAT (a quarter note) from which the division is derived). I thnk
Gardner Read's Notation goes into this topic pretty exhaustively.

Steve