This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Irrational rhythm was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 August 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Tuplet. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Irrational rhythm page were merged into Tuplet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (November 2009) |
Could you tell me the etimology of this word? Does it have something common with a Tup? -- A4 11:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Tuplet is a synonym of irrational rhythm as far as I can tell. (The only difference being that AFAIK 'tuplet' emerged as the term used in software such as Finale.) Hence I suggest these two articles are merged. Ben Finn 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the two are related, but not the same. T-1 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I never heard of the term "irrational rhythm". I've always considered "tuplet" just slang. I don't think there really is a standard term subsuming triplets, quintuplets, and so on, other than "divisions", which is all they really are. TheScotch ( talk) 09:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
If I were ever tempted employ this particular notatonal device and felt compelled specifically to name it, I would probably call it a "non-binary [referring to the lower numeral only] time signature". If the article called it that, I don't think that would constitute "original research", since "non-binary time signature" merely states what the thing actually is in simple quotidean language. It's not jargon or special terminology. TheScotch ( talk)
The paragraph beginning "For other tuplets, the number indicates a ratio..." is evidently supposed to explain the ratio notation, but then it doesn't, continuing as it does as "So a quintuplet indicated with the numeral 5..." Could someone rewrite the paragraph using an actual ratio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.157.131 ( talk • contribs)
Seems to me this page could use a mention of nested tuplets, like this example, and something about how to make sense of them. I'll try to add it myself if I find the time and energy, but thought I'd post this suggestion in case I fail to manage it. Pfly 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is all about the musical usage of "tuple", but the word is used in other contexts too. For example in mathematics see the article about Prime k-tuple. In computer science in general it's used for any combination of fixed set of properties used together (similar to the math usage), as a generalisation of pair, triplet, quadruplets, etc.
Per or in response to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrational rhythm, "Tuplet" and Irrational rhythm should be merged because they cover the same topic with the only difference being that tuplets are found by themselves and irrational rhythms are tuplets found against non-tuplets. Hyacinth ( talk) 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have flagged as "vague" the claim that, "Previously, there was no general term for these individual tuplets." This claims that "tuplet" predates the terms "irrational rhythm", "artificial division", "abnormal divisions", "irregular rhythm", and "contrametric rhythm", all cited in the article lede. However, no date is mentioned for the introduction of the term "tuplet", nor can I find any information on the introduction of any of these terms into music. The term in mathematics and physics was introduced around 1850, according to the OED, but it does not mention any of these musical terms at all. I was personally familiar with the terms "irrational", "irregular", "artificial", and "abnormal" (as well as the term "-olet" borrowed from French) for many years before first encountering "tuplet" and "uplet" in the mid-1970s, but that is just the experience of one individual, and is certainly not a documentable, reliable source. I have also tried the New Grove and an assortment of books on musical notation, without any success. Can anyone come up with the needed documentation for the date(s) of introduction for any of these terms?— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I say a nonuplet is 9 in the usual time of 8. In an x/4 time signature, a 9 over a group of thirty-second notes makes a quarter note. However, one Internet site says 9 in the time of 6. Who is right?? Georgia guy ( talk) 20:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.musicarrangers.com/star-theory/t13.htm Georgia guy ( talk) 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
We know that a sextuplet (sixteenth note sextuplet in x/4 time) is 1-e-and-a-then-a. We also know that a triplet (eighth note triplet in x/4 time) is 1-and-a or 1-and-then. How about mixing up the 2 note durations?? How can we notate it?? For example:
1-and-a-then-a where the 1 is an eighth note triplet and the and-a-then-a are 4 sixteenth note sextuplets?? How can we notate it with notes on a staff?? Georgia guy ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I say a sextuplet (6 notes in the usual time of 4) is 1-e-and-a-then-a with tertiary stress on the and and then. However, most Internet sites that talk about sextuplets say it is 1-and-a-then-and-a with tertiary stress on the then. Which is correct and if both are correct, how can they be distinguished?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Does Wikia have any wiki that can talk about tuplets in detail?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The items now listed in further reading, all but three, seem general to music and not specific to tuplets:
Any reason they should stay? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of references to third-level tuplets (any integer from 9 to 15 in the usual time of 8) on sites that talk about tuplets, and I'm sure they have been used in a few composers' works. But how about fourth-level tuplets. This means any integer from 17 to 31 in the usual time of 16 notes?? Have any of these been in actual use?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The septuplet image has a problem re: notation practice. My music notation manual (Essential Dictionary of Music Notation by Tom Gerou/Linda Lisk) says that when you have to determine a tuplet in relation to the beat, or measure, subdivide the measure as many times as you can without exceeding the number of notes in the tuplet. The example on the left, with the septuplets as crotchets, is fine, as the measure here is subdivided into four crotchets, not exceeding the number of notes in the tuplet. The second measure is wrong, because the beat subdivision exceeds the notes that the septuplet has. It is written incorrectly. -- 82.38.172.194 ( talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It says the time signature is 4/4, meaning 4 quarter note beats. Is the reason 4/4 was brought up as opposed to 1/1 because 4/4 makes more sense or merely because it is more well-known or more widely used?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
1-e-and-a-then-and-a with each syllable taking up one-seventh of the beat.
If we think of it as 4/4, it is much more complicated because it would require each note to take up 4/7 of a beat, and knowing how it sounds would require a "7 against 4" rhythm. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The text says "7 notes in the duration of 4" meaning a general context of four notes and a nonstandard seven notes, thus requiring a tuplet. 4/4 realistically provides this context, while 1/1 is unnecessary and misleading. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You can't each 7th in 7-against-4 using: 1234567 (or 1-ah-ee-i-oh-uh-y). How would you then count each 4th? Each 4th would then take 1 3/4 of a count, the opposite of the problem before (where each 7th was 4/7 of a count). Tuplets can only be counted at extremely slow tempos using LCM. Hyacinth ( talk) 09:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps most importantly, 1/1 still tells one that there are 4 quarter notes, since there has to be in a whole note, but it doesn't tell one anything about the tuplet. Given 1/1, why not then a sextuplet instead of a septuplet? Hyacinth ( talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, it looks kind of strange to have the septuplet notated in the first bar with crotchets and in the second with quavers. Since this contradicting notation is (unfortunately IMHO) common for tuplets, some sort of explanation should be given, as for the duplet/quadruplet example (which logically should have crotchet duplets and quaver quadruplets, but pretty much nobody writes it that way). Double sharp ( talk) 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A small point but the article uses only the US nomenclature (quarter-note, eight-note etc.) and does not acknowledge the European usage (crotchet, quaver etc.). In the context of talking about notes that occupy some fraction of the usual timing, this might be confusing to non-Americans. Is it possible to add a cross reference to alternative nomenclature somewhere near the start of the article? 80.175.117.129 ( talk) 11:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I find that last parenthetical remark bizarre and unsupportable. French used to be the "lingua franca" in certain circles, mostly diplomatic, but never musical. The very term "lingua franca", since it's Latin, a prior lingua franca, suggests that these things come and go, which is indeed the case. The current lingua franca, just in general, is arguably English. The British in particular cling obstinately to antequated, awkward, and arbitrary terminology. The German and American terms for note values are eminately logical and should be preferred around the world (translated into the appropriate languages, of course, mutatis mutandis). TheScotch ( talk) 19:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't notice it, but if I had, I still would have ignored it. If "Jerome" meant the remark ironically, he could have made that clear without recourse to eccentric punctuation. TheScotch ( talk)
Why are a bunch of the music articles doing this citation style?
"There are disagreements about the sextuplet (pronounced with stress on the first syllable, according to Baker 1895, 177) or sestole or sestolet (Baker 1895, 177) or sextole (Baker 1895, 177) or sextolet (Baker 1895, 177; Cooper 1973, 32; Latham 2002; Shedlock 1876, 62, 68, 87, 93; Stainer and Barrett 1876, 395; Taylor 1879–89; Taylor 2001)"
This could be rewritten as: "There are disagreements about the sextuplet (pronounced with stress on the first syllable[1]) or sestole or sestolet[1] or sextole[1] or sextolet ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7])"
...which seems much easier to read to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.151.39 ( talk) 03:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never once seen this terminology used this way. Jon Peckman is not someone I'd ever heard of before and his book does not appear to have any great acclaim (I don't mean this as an insult against the guy, just that his personal idiosyncratic terminology isn't any more notable than anyone else's, he's not an authority). 115.64.197.26 ( talk) 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There are lots of terms relating to non-American spellings of certain notes. Are these necessary to better understand tuplets or are they redundant? Holdonspirit ( talk) 17:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The terms "quarter note", "half note", and so on ARE English. I'm guessing you mean British, not English. I noticed that Imogen Holst, daughter of Gustav, who was, despite her name, very British, necessarily resorts to using American terms (then translating them) in her primer explaining note values to her British audience. This suggests to me that virtually all musically literate Brits will be familiar with and understand the American terms, whereas not all musically literate Americans will be familiar with the British terms (nor should they be). So I don't think the British terms are "definitely needed"--assuming you do mean British. TheScotch ( talk)
Triplets are three notes in the time of two. Thus the “3” above a set of triplets is really an abbreviation of “3:2”. The colon and second numeral are normally omitted because the triplet rhythm is so common and easily understood. More complex or rare divisions do require the colon and second numeral. This notation needs to be mentioned in the article. TheScotch ( talk) 09:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Irrational rhythm was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 August 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Tuplet. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Irrational rhythm page were merged into Tuplet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (November 2009) |
Could you tell me the etimology of this word? Does it have something common with a Tup? -- A4 11:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Tuplet is a synonym of irrational rhythm as far as I can tell. (The only difference being that AFAIK 'tuplet' emerged as the term used in software such as Finale.) Hence I suggest these two articles are merged. Ben Finn 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the two are related, but not the same. T-1 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I never heard of the term "irrational rhythm". I've always considered "tuplet" just slang. I don't think there really is a standard term subsuming triplets, quintuplets, and so on, other than "divisions", which is all they really are. TheScotch ( talk) 09:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
If I were ever tempted employ this particular notatonal device and felt compelled specifically to name it, I would probably call it a "non-binary [referring to the lower numeral only] time signature". If the article called it that, I don't think that would constitute "original research", since "non-binary time signature" merely states what the thing actually is in simple quotidean language. It's not jargon or special terminology. TheScotch ( talk)
The paragraph beginning "For other tuplets, the number indicates a ratio..." is evidently supposed to explain the ratio notation, but then it doesn't, continuing as it does as "So a quintuplet indicated with the numeral 5..." Could someone rewrite the paragraph using an actual ratio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.157.131 ( talk • contribs)
Seems to me this page could use a mention of nested tuplets, like this example, and something about how to make sense of them. I'll try to add it myself if I find the time and energy, but thought I'd post this suggestion in case I fail to manage it. Pfly 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is all about the musical usage of "tuple", but the word is used in other contexts too. For example in mathematics see the article about Prime k-tuple. In computer science in general it's used for any combination of fixed set of properties used together (similar to the math usage), as a generalisation of pair, triplet, quadruplets, etc.
Per or in response to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrational rhythm, "Tuplet" and Irrational rhythm should be merged because they cover the same topic with the only difference being that tuplets are found by themselves and irrational rhythms are tuplets found against non-tuplets. Hyacinth ( talk) 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have flagged as "vague" the claim that, "Previously, there was no general term for these individual tuplets." This claims that "tuplet" predates the terms "irrational rhythm", "artificial division", "abnormal divisions", "irregular rhythm", and "contrametric rhythm", all cited in the article lede. However, no date is mentioned for the introduction of the term "tuplet", nor can I find any information on the introduction of any of these terms into music. The term in mathematics and physics was introduced around 1850, according to the OED, but it does not mention any of these musical terms at all. I was personally familiar with the terms "irrational", "irregular", "artificial", and "abnormal" (as well as the term "-olet" borrowed from French) for many years before first encountering "tuplet" and "uplet" in the mid-1970s, but that is just the experience of one individual, and is certainly not a documentable, reliable source. I have also tried the New Grove and an assortment of books on musical notation, without any success. Can anyone come up with the needed documentation for the date(s) of introduction for any of these terms?— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I say a nonuplet is 9 in the usual time of 8. In an x/4 time signature, a 9 over a group of thirty-second notes makes a quarter note. However, one Internet site says 9 in the time of 6. Who is right?? Georgia guy ( talk) 20:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.musicarrangers.com/star-theory/t13.htm Georgia guy ( talk) 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
We know that a sextuplet (sixteenth note sextuplet in x/4 time) is 1-e-and-a-then-a. We also know that a triplet (eighth note triplet in x/4 time) is 1-and-a or 1-and-then. How about mixing up the 2 note durations?? How can we notate it?? For example:
1-and-a-then-a where the 1 is an eighth note triplet and the and-a-then-a are 4 sixteenth note sextuplets?? How can we notate it with notes on a staff?? Georgia guy ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I say a sextuplet (6 notes in the usual time of 4) is 1-e-and-a-then-a with tertiary stress on the and and then. However, most Internet sites that talk about sextuplets say it is 1-and-a-then-and-a with tertiary stress on the then. Which is correct and if both are correct, how can they be distinguished?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Does Wikia have any wiki that can talk about tuplets in detail?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The items now listed in further reading, all but three, seem general to music and not specific to tuplets:
Any reason they should stay? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of references to third-level tuplets (any integer from 9 to 15 in the usual time of 8) on sites that talk about tuplets, and I'm sure they have been used in a few composers' works. But how about fourth-level tuplets. This means any integer from 17 to 31 in the usual time of 16 notes?? Have any of these been in actual use?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The septuplet image has a problem re: notation practice. My music notation manual (Essential Dictionary of Music Notation by Tom Gerou/Linda Lisk) says that when you have to determine a tuplet in relation to the beat, or measure, subdivide the measure as many times as you can without exceeding the number of notes in the tuplet. The example on the left, with the septuplets as crotchets, is fine, as the measure here is subdivided into four crotchets, not exceeding the number of notes in the tuplet. The second measure is wrong, because the beat subdivision exceeds the notes that the septuplet has. It is written incorrectly. -- 82.38.172.194 ( talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It says the time signature is 4/4, meaning 4 quarter note beats. Is the reason 4/4 was brought up as opposed to 1/1 because 4/4 makes more sense or merely because it is more well-known or more widely used?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
1-e-and-a-then-and-a with each syllable taking up one-seventh of the beat.
If we think of it as 4/4, it is much more complicated because it would require each note to take up 4/7 of a beat, and knowing how it sounds would require a "7 against 4" rhythm. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The text says "7 notes in the duration of 4" meaning a general context of four notes and a nonstandard seven notes, thus requiring a tuplet. 4/4 realistically provides this context, while 1/1 is unnecessary and misleading. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You can't each 7th in 7-against-4 using: 1234567 (or 1-ah-ee-i-oh-uh-y). How would you then count each 4th? Each 4th would then take 1 3/4 of a count, the opposite of the problem before (where each 7th was 4/7 of a count). Tuplets can only be counted at extremely slow tempos using LCM. Hyacinth ( talk) 09:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps most importantly, 1/1 still tells one that there are 4 quarter notes, since there has to be in a whole note, but it doesn't tell one anything about the tuplet. Given 1/1, why not then a sextuplet instead of a septuplet? Hyacinth ( talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, it looks kind of strange to have the septuplet notated in the first bar with crotchets and in the second with quavers. Since this contradicting notation is (unfortunately IMHO) common for tuplets, some sort of explanation should be given, as for the duplet/quadruplet example (which logically should have crotchet duplets and quaver quadruplets, but pretty much nobody writes it that way). Double sharp ( talk) 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A small point but the article uses only the US nomenclature (quarter-note, eight-note etc.) and does not acknowledge the European usage (crotchet, quaver etc.). In the context of talking about notes that occupy some fraction of the usual timing, this might be confusing to non-Americans. Is it possible to add a cross reference to alternative nomenclature somewhere near the start of the article? 80.175.117.129 ( talk) 11:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I find that last parenthetical remark bizarre and unsupportable. French used to be the "lingua franca" in certain circles, mostly diplomatic, but never musical. The very term "lingua franca", since it's Latin, a prior lingua franca, suggests that these things come and go, which is indeed the case. The current lingua franca, just in general, is arguably English. The British in particular cling obstinately to antequated, awkward, and arbitrary terminology. The German and American terms for note values are eminately logical and should be preferred around the world (translated into the appropriate languages, of course, mutatis mutandis). TheScotch ( talk) 19:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't notice it, but if I had, I still would have ignored it. If "Jerome" meant the remark ironically, he could have made that clear without recourse to eccentric punctuation. TheScotch ( talk)
Why are a bunch of the music articles doing this citation style?
"There are disagreements about the sextuplet (pronounced with stress on the first syllable, according to Baker 1895, 177) or sestole or sestolet (Baker 1895, 177) or sextole (Baker 1895, 177) or sextolet (Baker 1895, 177; Cooper 1973, 32; Latham 2002; Shedlock 1876, 62, 68, 87, 93; Stainer and Barrett 1876, 395; Taylor 1879–89; Taylor 2001)"
This could be rewritten as: "There are disagreements about the sextuplet (pronounced with stress on the first syllable[1]) or sestole or sestolet[1] or sextole[1] or sextolet ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7])"
...which seems much easier to read to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.151.39 ( talk) 03:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never once seen this terminology used this way. Jon Peckman is not someone I'd ever heard of before and his book does not appear to have any great acclaim (I don't mean this as an insult against the guy, just that his personal idiosyncratic terminology isn't any more notable than anyone else's, he's not an authority). 115.64.197.26 ( talk) 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There are lots of terms relating to non-American spellings of certain notes. Are these necessary to better understand tuplets or are they redundant? Holdonspirit ( talk) 17:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The terms "quarter note", "half note", and so on ARE English. I'm guessing you mean British, not English. I noticed that Imogen Holst, daughter of Gustav, who was, despite her name, very British, necessarily resorts to using American terms (then translating them) in her primer explaining note values to her British audience. This suggests to me that virtually all musically literate Brits will be familiar with and understand the American terms, whereas not all musically literate Americans will be familiar with the British terms (nor should they be). So I don't think the British terms are "definitely needed"--assuming you do mean British. TheScotch ( talk)
Triplets are three notes in the time of two. Thus the “3” above a set of triplets is really an abbreviation of “3:2”. The colon and second numeral are normally omitted because the triplet rhythm is so common and easily understood. More complex or rare divisions do require the colon and second numeral. This notation needs to be mentioned in the article. TheScotch ( talk) 09:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)