"horizontal" option for tuplettes
You know how beams have the ability to be either user positioned or horizontal? Maybe this wouldn't be a bad feature to have as an option for tuplette brackettes in the inspector. For personal reasons someone might not want the angle to correspond to any angle of brackets within the tuplette...
Comments
You can customize the angle already - double click and drag the handles. If there is some reason according to a generally-recognized standard on engraving why horizontal tuplets are recommended for some particular musical context then I could see adding an to have an easy horizontal option. But if it's just a personal preference not backed up by actual published music, then the argument for such an option is not as strong. Can you cite any sources for why such an option should be considered?
In reply to You can customize the angle by Marc Sabatella
The wishes of the artist(s) demand a non-affirmation.
This is to say: "Nope".
In reply to The wishes of the artist(s) by worldwideweary
P.S. with some elements there are values capable of being reset into the "0.0" range, e.g. horizontal and vertical positioning. There are no such values for a tuplet angle--one must either eyeball horizontalness after moving tuplet handles, or undo recent activity. That is, unless I'm performing the sin of omission.
Either way, disregard the suggestion if the option requires consensus with outside sources for viability. I may have been too out of my senses in recognizing its unworth at the moment of inception.
In reply to P.S. with some elements there by worldwideweary
Well, it's not completely crazy idea :) - just that the more common / recommended it is, the more likely we'd want to automate it.
The idea of having an easier way of manually making it horizontal makes more sense to me - whetehr literally setting some value (slope?) to 0, or just a "horizontal" checkbox like there is for individual beams. That seems worth suggesting formally as a feature request in the issue tracker.
In reply to Well, it's not completely by Marc Sabatella
P.S. I don't mean to resurrect an old post, but to add an observation: I find horizontal brackets apply well when working in two voices where on the first voice the tuple is above and the second voice is below. Very often, not always, the above tuple bracket is horizontal -- parallel to the staff bars -- but the bottom tuple bracket will have a tendency to be slanted. This is just opinion, but I think it looks nice having them both be uniform as horizontal brackets. Honestly I rather like the style of tuple-# under a slur curve anyways, so whatever... ;)
In reply to P.S. I don't mean to by worldwideweary
P.S. One of the ideas (three years ago or so: sometimes the psychosomatic experience undergoes a certain... momentum, eh?) behind the initial post was that if someone were dealing with a situation like:
![tuple-angle-1.png]( "tuple-angle-1.png")
![tuple-angle-2.png]( "tuple-angle-2.png")
but then wanted the tuple brackets to be uniformly horizontal for personal reasons, such as with:
They wouldn't have any aid in doing so as with for instance the horizontal option of beams or their offset parameters, and instead would have to rely on their eyes for customized offsetting.
In reply to The point (three years ago… by worldwideweary
That's a very good example! I would like to upvote on the idea of implementing a "flat tuplet" functionality, globally as well as individually. In that case I have to admit I like Finale's solution quite a bit.
In reply to You can customize the angle by Marc Sabatella
I would say that, since there is a function for "flat beams" (got the German version, so the english term might differ), there must be a similar function for each and everything that follows beam angles. It is nit a question of citation, but a question of consistency.
And I am also wondering, where I could find a source to cite for the flat beam option - do you have any?
In reply to I would say that, since… by rowild
I would say, other things that follow beams should simply obey that same option. I can't imagine a context in which you'd want, as a rule for a given score, slanted beams but flat tuplets. So one option for both seems sufficient.
Not sure what exactly you mean about citing a source, but in general, Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars" is pretty much universally considered the definitive reference.
In reply to I would say, other things… by Marc Sabatella
Your approach is of course way clearer and definitely more logical! But I wonder if that is possible at the moment - didn't try it with a new score, but only with one from 2.3, where the tuplets won't follow your suggested rule, when I activate flat beams.
(The citation thing was only in reference to you same - very valid! - question that you asked earlier in this conversation.)
In reply to Your approach is of course… by rowild
In general, tuplets try to follow beams, bt don't necessarily do so always. If you attach your score we can take a look.
See #294098: Tuplets need a "Set bracket horizontal" checkbox in the Inspector