Décompte de temps
la division irréguliere ne fonctionne pas
avez vous une solution ?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| PAS_DE_SOLUTION__bug__Un_quart_de_temps_n'est_pas_décompté.mscz | 6.11 KB |
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
Please be aware that there is a French forum too, see https://musescore.org/fr/forum.
Goggle translate:
countdown
the irregular division does not work
Do you have a solution ?
Hmm, well, I don't quite see the problem. The math is wrong in the 2nd measure, that 16th note is 0.25 (of a quarter), not 0.75 as your text implies, and only then then the measure adds up to 4/4
in measure 1 the triplet's total length is 0.75, 3 16th of 0.25 or, as written, 16th of 0.5 plus one 16fh of 0.25
I thought tuplets could only add up to a single, non-dotted duration. Is a tuplet of length 0.75 allowed in music notation? It certainly seems pointless here where it has been divided into 3 parts, each of length 0.25, which could have been shown without a tuplet. But I suppose the real issue is whether MuseScore should allow this.
In reply to I thought tuplets could only by shoogle
It indeed seems pointless but is definitly possible and I see no compelling readson to disallow it
In reply to It indeed seems pointless but by Jojo-Schmitz
Well the reason would be if this was expressly forbidden (or at least never actually done) in printed music, but come think of it I can think of one time it is used: duplets in a compound time signature. So the rule is probably "tuplets must add up to a whole number of divisions", rather than "tuplets must add up to a whole number of durations", but implementing that rule is probably more trouble than it is worth.
In reply to It indeed seems pointless but by Jojo-Schmitz
@ Jojo--Actually, I think there might be a reason for disallowing (or at least modifying) it: Such a triplet is visually indistinguishable from a normal triplet until you start doing the arithmetic and come up with the 'wrong' answer. In other words, we're presenting two identical note groups which mean two different things, and relying on context alone to make the actual meaning clear. Not so good.
tuplet trompe l'oeil.mscz
I don't know of any notation convention which provides for showing the underlying metrical unit in a tuplet. Anyone?
Note; this isn't a problem for duplets, etc., in compound meters, obviously.
In reply to @ Jojo--Actually, I think by Recorder485
@Recorder485, I think what you are saying is that MuseScore should disallow unnecessary tuplets. In other words, tuplets should not be allowed when there is an alternative way to notate the same content without using a tuplet.
Alorithmically, this means the tuplet should not divide into a number which the total duration of the tuplet is already divisible by. In the example above the tuplet has a total length of three 16th notes (or 3/16), so a triplet should not be allowed here, but a quintuplet (5 note tuplet) should be allowed.
In the case of a duplet in a compound time signature (e.g. 6/8), it would have total length 3/8. Of course, 3 is not divisible by 2, but the length could also be written as 6/16. This is divisible by 2, yet we know that duplets are allowed. Therefore, it is important the the total length of the tuplet is expressed in its simplest (i.e. reduced) form before deciding whether to allow a tuplet.
In reply to @Recorder485, I think what by shoogle
That's a good way to express it. If someone tries to enter such a tuplet, the program could (should?) automatically display it in standard notation instead.
I think there would be a need for a popup warning when that happens, otherwise there would be sure to be users thinking the program wasn't working properly. Even better, the popup could offer the user an override option after warning him what he's asked for is non-standard and unnecessary. Unless and until a true 'scratch-pad' utility is developed, the ability to set non-standard notation on those occasions it is needed (for illustrative or historical purposes) remains a plus.
In reply to @ Jojo--Actually, I think by Recorder485
"I don't know of any notation convention which provides for showing the underlying metrical unit in a tuplet. Anyone?"
Ratios, like 3:2 ("the three notes in this tuplet take the combined amount or time that two normally would"), are pretty much exactly that. But I really don't understand this usage at all. You have the same notation played with the same rhythm, with or without a tuplet bracket and number. It is what it already is.
In reply to "I don't know of any notation by Isaac Weiss
I am aware of that convention, but I have never actually seen a published score using it and I agree that it is at best semi-comprehensible. I would never use it in one of my editions.
@Bruno91: Vous avez créé ce triolet sur la base d'un croche pointé, alors le bilan mathématique est pareil comme s'il n'y avait pas de triolet--chaque note d'un tel triolet égalise un double croche ordinaire.
Si vous voulez diviser ce temps en tiers, il faut créer ce triolet sur un croche, et non pas un croche pointé. Voir m. 3 dans la partition révisée.
SOLUTION PROBLEME DE TEMPS.mscz
------------------------------------------------------------
(Translation for the benefit of the English forum readers):
"You have created that triplet based on a dotted eighth, so the mathematical result is the same as if there were no triplet there at all: each note of such a triplet equals an ordinary 16th note.
"If you want to divide that beat in three, you have to base the triplet on a single eighth note, not a dotted one. See m. 3 in the revised version of the score."