A change in the way triplets are created

• Jul 8, 2009 - 22:56

Right now, to create a triplet (or any tuplet), you have to enter a note of the full duration of that triplet. It would make more sense if you entered one unit of the triplet. For example: instead of entering a half note and pressing ctrl+3 to get triplet quarter notes, it would make more sense to enter a quarter note to get a quarter note triplet. The current way is not quite as intuitve.

Comments

• Jul 9, 2009 - 07:03

I find the current implementation quite intuitive and useful. Notate the total duration first and then subdivide by what ever amount (3, 5, 7, 9, whatever).

Also, by notating the duration first, you are properly setting up the ratio that the tuplet has to fit into. A septuplet eighth note could appear in 7:2 and 7:3 when following standard notation conventions. By entering the duration first, there's no guesswork (on the software's part) in deciding which ratio you are trying to notate. Just plug in a halfnote first for 7:2 or a dotted halfnote for 7:3, then hit ctl+7.

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 17:46

You would think that you could create ratios, right. But that capability is not part of musescore (besides regular ratios, like 3:2, 5:4 of cource). If I put a dotted half note in a 6/8 bar (taking up the whole bar), then press ctrl + 5, trying to input notes either does not work, or causes a crash.

[EDIT]
There is a different way to create tuplets like 5:6. Add a note of the full duration, then, go notes >> tuplets >> other tuplets.

Reply

• Jul 9, 2009 - 11:52

I agree with Isaac. For a quarter noote triplet I wat to press quarter note and then ctrl3. The way it is now would also work if the notelength changed consistently. If you press half note and ctrl3 you get a quarternote triplet of which the first note is a quarter note. Howeverb the next note you input will be a half note. I think the note length should change to quarter notes when that first quarternote is input. That would make it far more logical.

Reply

• Jul 9, 2009 - 18:19

There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods.

Isaac's method is intuitive when the first note is the same as the triplet division (for example three triplet eighth notes). It is less intuitive when the first note is not the same as a the triplet division (for example quarter note followed by eighth note). Another advantage of this method is that most of other scorewriters use this method.

The disadvantage of the current MuseScore method is it is less intuitive especially the first few times however it is consistent. There are also some limitations to the current implementation so some types of triplets are impossible to notate (see http://musescore.org/en/node/1924#comment-4477 ). Maybe it should be possible to select tied notes in order to allow tuplets that span durations other than simple half-note, whole-note, dotted half-note, etc.

Reply

• Jul 9, 2009 - 18:30

I have to say, as a composer, that I enjoy the MuseScore implementation for tuplets much better than Sibelius or Finale. It's just much more efficient to notate the duration and then subdivide the tuplet. I don't have to deal with dialogs for typing in ratios or other "extra" steps. It's a two step process via shortcuts in MuseScore: type note, subdivide. Done.

Don't change it. I implore you. Add an option to create Isaac's behavior, but don't take out the current implementation.

The other score editors have it wrong and MuseScore has it right.

Reply

• Jul 9, 2009 - 21:00

Agree with Raymond May.
Btw Werner just changed the implementation. Now you don't need to actually input the first note. You just select the note duration (half), do Ctrl + 3, and you have 3 quarter rests. You just have to type the pitches to fill the tuplet.
It's shorter. I like it better than Isaac method but I'm not sure if it 's better than the previous implementation, it may be disleading.

Reply

• Jul 11, 2009 - 00:07

for one thing, sometimes it's necessary to use uneven tuplets such as a quarter and eighth note in a triplet, or dotted 8th, 16th, 8th. This would be impossible, or at least much more difficult if the system were changed.
My only problem with the current implementation is that some tuplets are impossible. Maybe improve the "other tuplets..." dialogue box.

Reply

• Jul 11, 2009 - 06:22

I'm not sure that the changed implementation that Lasconic mentions above is shorter, it just changes the order of when you put in the first note. Also, the new implementation is not consistent between note entry mode and regular mode. I would prefer the old implementation to the new one in its current form.

Reply

• Jul 14, 2009 - 03:56

I see the logic of the new implementation: take care of duration before entering pitch. I guess I was used to the old way and worried that it would confuse others (since it confused me until I read about it on the change log and this thread).

Reply

• Jul 12, 2009 - 13:48

I agree with Isaac. Inputting the first note of e.g. a quarter note triplet as a normal quarter note and then pressing Ctrl+3 to make it the first note of the triplet is much more intuitive than what we have now. For special cases, like for example in 4/4 time wanting to write a quarter note quintuplet for the duration of a dotted half note, I think we need features and a dialog window like the one attached from Igor Engraver.

Attachment Size
Tuplet dialog window in Igor Engraver.PNG 18.21 KB
Tuplet dialog window in MuseScore 0.9.4.PNG 100.4 KB

Reply

• Jul 13, 2009 - 08:57

Generally I like the way they are implemented.

I just have a problem sometimes understanding how to notate what I want.
For example, see attached.

I play the first 8th note and the quarter notes spaced evenly evenly in time up to the last 2 eighths. The last 2 eighths are played as notated. How would you do it?

I also would like to be able to notate 4 in the time of 3. What would that look like?

Regards.

Attachment Size
tuplets.png 24.14 KB

Reply

• Jul 13, 2009 - 10:07

"I play the first 8th note and the quarter notes spaced evenly evenly in time up to the last 2 eighths. The last 2 eighths are played as notated. How would you do it?"

I am afraid I do not understand what you mean here. Your attached example looked OK to me.

Regarding the notation of 4 in the time of 3 it looked like in the attached MuseScore 0.9.4 example when I tried it there. I typed a dotted half note and pressed Ctrl+4 to divide it into a quadruplet. MuseScore divided it, but not into 4 quarters as I expected but instead into 4 eighths. Then the program refused to accept notes where the three eighth rests were.

In the attached example from Igor Engraver I typed a quarter note and pressed Alt+4 which made a bracket with a "4" appear above it. Then I continued inputting three more quarter notes to fill the quadruplet. At last I typed yet another quarter that became the last normal quarter note of the bar.

Attachment Size
Quadruplet in MuseScore 0.9.4.PNG 104.16 KB
Quadruplet in Igor Engraver.PNG 37.12 KB

Reply

• Jul 13, 2009 - 15:05

Thanks Magnus.

As to your examples, please try to divide a whole bar of 3/4 time into 4 equal divisions.

As to the 1st problem, there is nothing wrong with the notation except that it doesn't represent what I want.
I'll give some thought as to how to present the first problem in an understandable manner.

regards.

Reply

• Jul 13, 2009 - 22:00

You're welcome.

Attached is what I got when I tried to input a quadruplet that fills a bar in 3/4 time. First I typed a dotted half note, then I pressed Ctrl+4 to divide it into a quadruplet, just to realise that the second bar got divided into four instead, all according to the new tuplet input method in MuseScore. The division consisted though of four eighth note rests which is not what most notators (including me) would expect; a quadruplet on a dotted half note should by default be written using quarter notes. I tried to use quarter notes, but then I could -- not surprisingly -- only write two quarter notes in that bar. On 1st of April this year I submitted a report to the issue tracker regarding this (http://musescore.org/en/node/1442) but nobody has apparently dealt with it; maybe 1st of April wasn't a good date to submit an issue report.

The screenshot of Igor Engraver shows in the first bar what a quadruplet should look like in 3/4 time.

Attachment Size
Quadruplet in 3-4 time in MuseScore 0.9.4 revision 1926.PNG 115.58 KB
Quadruplet in 3-4 time in Igor Engraver.PNG 37.53 KB

Reply

• Jul 13, 2009 - 17:38

Xavier,

What time signature is that snippet in? That would really help us show you how to notate what you want. Since it looks like you are trying to notate a tuplet across a barline (and starting on an off-beat no less), it might be better to combine the two measures into one (with a time signature change) for readability.

Reply

• Jul 13, 2009 - 18:06

Yeah, you are probably best to change those two measures into one 4/2 measure.

You are trying to notate a 4:6 tuplet (four quarters in the time of 6 straight eighth notes) or two 2:3 tuplets (two quarters in the time of three eighths).

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 22:24

The problem with your "easier method" is that no duration is defined. You are essentially telling the computer to always assume that tuplets should be of a set ratio, in your case you seem to want ctl+4 on a quarter note to always be 4:3 when in practice a quarter note as part of a tuplet can be found in 5:4 and others depending on the time signature and duration.

In MuseScore you define the duration by simply selecting the length value (or inputting it) and then subdividing with ctl+number of notes to fit over the duration. Once the tuplet is created/defined you can further change the duration of the notes in the tuplet to you hearts content.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 08:15

In MuseScore 0.9.4 revision 1926 inputting a quintuplet 5:6 in 6/4 time was not possible at all using the following methods:

A
After you have created a score with the right time signature,
1. Press N (Note entry mode)
2. Press Ctrl+5 (Quintuplet)
3. Press 6 (For using half notes in the quintuplet)
MuseScore crashes.

B
After you have created a score with the right time signature,
1. Press N
2. Press Ctrl+5
3. Press 5 (For using quarter notes in the quintuplet)
4. Press e.g. A (The note A)
MuseScore does not input a note but the cursor advances to the next rest.

In Igor Engraver you do like this:
After you created a piece with the right time signature,
1. Double-click the first bar.
2. Press 6 (For using half notes in the quintuplet)
3. Press e.g. F6 (to input the note A)
4. Press Alt+5 (Quintuplet)
5. Continue inputting notes in the quintuplet.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 08:51

Those are bugs particular to that prerelease revision. It is not that the method does not work or is invalid. It is a bug in the prerelease code that will be fixed before the release of 0.9.5, and if not then definately by version 1.

What we are discussing here (in this thread) is the method of creating a tuplet - not whether the implementation works in the current code revision you are looking at. Just because it is not working in the prelease you have downloaded, doesn't mean that the method is invalid.

The two methods:

  • MuseScore
    Set the duration that the tuplet occupies (can be as complex as you like from 2 beats to 9, 7, 13, whatever)
    Subdivide the duration into a tuplet via ctl+# or use the dialog.
    You can create complex tuplets on the fly without opening dialogs - quintuplets are NOT fixed at the ratio of 5:4, but dependent on the total duration - ctl+5 can create 5:4, 5:7, 5:23, ANYTHING
  • Others (Igor, Sibelius, et al.)
    Set the 'normal' length of a subdivided beat.
    Shortcut+5 creates a tuplet that is always 5:4 or as otherwise defined by the user in the preferences.
    You cannot create complex tuplets on the fly, but rather have to rely on dialogs to input the normal duration and the tuplet subdivision - hence adding additional steps.

It seems you are complaining about a bug in the prerelase rather than addressing the differences between the two methods. The bug will get fixed as this open source project has great talented maintainers.

As a composer I want to be free to define complex tuplets on the fly without having to delve into dialogs with my mouse. The method you are advocating absolutely requires that I use my mouse to navigate through a dialog to define any quintuplet that is not a ratio of 5:4. Whereas the MuseScore method does not require the use of dialogs, but rather the method defines the ratio in the process of creating the tuplet.

I grew up using Finale and Sibelius, and trust me, I'm done with the old method. And like I said in my first post, it would be fine to have the option to enter tuplets in the simplified manner you ask for, but in my opinion it should not supersede the current method.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 09:14

Where in the creation of your suggested tuplet 5:6 in 6/4 time did I have to use a dialog?

"Shortcut+5 creates a tuplet that is always 5:4 or as otherwise defined by the user in the preferences."

That is an outright lie. See how the quintuplet you asked for was done in Igor Engraver.

"and trust me"

No, I do not trust you, Raymond.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 16:04

I'm done posting about this as this is a point of deep contention with you and you are failing to discuss why there is a problem with the MuseScore method.

There are several different circumstances where a quarter note would be the normal division of different ratio quintuplets: 5:4 in 4/4, 5:6 in 6/4, etc. In the Sibelius/Igor/Finale way, how does the program know, after you have input a quarternote as the start of your tuplet, which ratio you are attempting to create?

In the MuseScore method, because you have already input the duration of the tuplet, the tuplet shortcuts set the ratio to the duration. A wholenote + clt+5 = 5:4, a dotted wholenote + ctl+5 = 5:6 -- both divided with quarternotes. This is in diessregard of the time signature.

In your Igor example, how does Igor know whether you are creating 5:4 in halfnotes or 5:6 in halfnotes (think in /2 time)? Is it dependant on the time signature?

You don't have to trust me, but you can at least try reading what I'm posting and understanding it.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 22:58

"[...] and you are failing to discuss why there is a problem with the MuseScore method."

There is no problem with the MuseScore method (if and when it works), it is just that there already exists a better method.

"[...] but you can at least try reading what I'm posting and understanding it."

I have read and understood what you have written and when you couldn't refrain from lying about what I had done and what Igor Engraver was capable of, I realised your discussion standards were too low.

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 20:37

First of all, in my opinion, we don't need any of the formating on the bottom of the dialog. The real duration and apparent duration are changeable in musescore (actual notes = apparent duration). You don't need to specify a note duration (quaver, as shown in the dialog), because in musescore, you do that by deciding what note value to input before even bringing up the dialogs (subdividing a half note in three parts is always a quarter note, for example). Both have ways to set what grouping to use (bracket, auto bracket, nothing). To use auto bracket is the same as to select don't group beamed notes in Igor (I'm guessing).

What more do you need than to set the ratio (or relation), show the ratio, and select the grouping type (bracket, no bracket, or bracket only on non beamed notes)?

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 22:33

If I understand this discussion, there seems to be a question as to most efficiently getting the result one wants, and whether or not that is easily possible in the program.

It seems to me that Magnus' solution is both easy and wide ranging.

When one enters the 1st note value of the tuplet, one is telling the program if the tuplet is in quarters, halves etc.
When one then selects Ctrl-#, one then tells how many notes.

Or am I missing something?

regards.
x

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 22:40

Yes, that's essentially what he's saying/asking for. But the problem is there is no definition of what duration of time those notes are supposed to fit over. Hence the programming having to make assumptions or adding an additional step for the user.

In muse score you set the duration and then the division. Two steps. Done.

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 23:19

If my idea were to be implemented, you would have to do something like is done in Sibelius: create one unit of the tuplet, then open a tuplets dialog, and specify a ratio. In the 5:6 example, I would need to create the eighth note, then specify the ratio to be 5:6. That way the computer knows that I want it in the time of 6 eight notes, which is the same as one dotted half note.

In the current implementation, I would create a dotted half note, then open up a tuplets dialog, and select the 5:6 ratio.

The only difference is the note which I input before opening the tuplets dialog. Either it is a dotted half note, or an eight note. Both ideas two steps.

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 23:41

That's not entirely true. All you have to do in MuseScore (latest revision) (after choosing dotted half note) is hit ctl+5 and you then have a 5:6 tuplet. If you want the ratio displayed you can use the dialog or right click and change the properties.

In MuseScore you don't have to use the other tuplets dialogs to create complex ratio tuplets.

Set the duration. Subdivide via ctl+amount. Done. -- No dialogs.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 14:41

If in the next release you won't need to have a dialog box to create different ratios like 5:6, I suppose that would make sense. But as it is now (0.9.4) either way, it is two steps to create ratios like 5:6, in which case, the current implementation is not as good (in my opinion). If it will be made possible in the next release to create different ratios without a dialog box, then that makes sense. But what would make the most sense is to let the user decide, in the preferences/options window.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 16:33

Hello all.

I don't really understand what you are saying Raymond. When you say "no definition of what duration of time those notes are supposed to fit over", it that not what the Ctrl-# defines?
Or am I misunderstanding your point?

On a separate issue, I am uncomfortable with the personal tone this thread seems to have taken. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding, and that there is no real personal threat.

I hope we can resolve this without one just "removing" oneself from the discussion, although that may end up being the only solution.

I urge all to try not to take the disagreements personally.

Warm regards,
xavierjazz

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 17:10

To answer Xavier's question,

In MuseScore Ctl+# defines how you want to divide a given duration. In MuseScore we first select the duration (by selecting a note or rest (or whole measure rest), entering a note, or pressing one of the note length shortcuts (1, 2, 5, 6). Then we dividide that duration by the amount we desire with Ctl+#.

Selecting a quarternote then hitting Ctl+3 = 3:1 triplet eights. Selecting a wholenote then hitting Ctl+5 = 5:4 quintuplet quarters. With the MuseScore method we can theoretically divide any note length by any division amount.

There may be bugs in the code currently, but that is how the method is meant to work.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 17:20

Thanks for your short, cogent explanation.

I thought that's what we were all saying, that actually we all agreed and that the disagreement was caused by a misunderstanding..

If I am wrong, can anyone explain to me (obviously in very simple terms) what the apparent disagreement is (was?) about?

Regards.
x

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 22:40

Are you some sort of spokesperson regarding what we need? If you are fully content with the MuseScore tuplet dialog then it's good for you, but not necessarily for me or another user. How would you solve Xavier's example without specifying different note values within the tuplet?

Reply

• Jul 15, 2009 - 23:08

Are you talking about something like the attached, or am I missing something? This has two different note values inside the tuplet: quarter note and a half note. To create the half note, you should simply click the half note button, and enter it in the tuplet.

Attachment Size
triplet_quarter_half.jpg 1.58 KB

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 16:44

Attached is my attempt at answering what I think is the "bone of contention" here.

If this is not the answer, please pose the question to me in more understandable terms as I am at a lose to understand what is the disagreement..
Thanks,
x

Attachment Size
Clumsy.png 41.46 KB

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 17:52

Who knew passions ran so high on the subject of tuplets! As to Xavier's example, This isn't really a tuplet at all, double dotted 8th notes fit the bill just fine except for the first note which would need the eighth to be tied to a dotted 16 accross the bar line. Not so weird.

Reply

• Jul 16, 2009 - 18:09

Hi MD.

Thanks for your response, and thank you for your solution.

I attach your soultion to my problem here so noone will have to go looking for it.

I guess really you have solved my problem, although your solution seems a bit inelegant to me. Perhaps this is the only way to solve it?

Best regards,
x

Attachment Size
MD solution.png 53.24 KB

Reply

• Jul 21, 2009 - 16:15

This one looks a little neater. All the ties in the above example show where the beat falls, but that may confuse the issue more than necessary. This way you can clearly see at a glance that all notes have the same value, but you may have to look closer to see what value they occupy, which would be true of any solution.

Attachment Size
xaviers problem.mscz 1.35 KB

Reply

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.