Talk:Tuplet

Etymology

Could you tell me the etimology of this word? Does it have something common with a Tup? --A4 11:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See tuple and [1]. Hyacinth 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a back formation from 'quintuplet', 'sextuplet' etc. - all are '-tuplets' Ben Finn 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

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've honestly never heard the phrase 'irrational rhythm' before, but it sounds like tuplets would be a subset of irrational rhythms. Either way, I don't really see enough of a distinction to keep them separated. Maybe if someone could explain the differences I'd change my mind though. Torc2 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tuplets and irrational rhythm are not the same thing; a lot of musicians (and particularly music students) will be familiar with tuplets but may never hear the term "irrational rhythm" - for that reason alone, it seems reasonable to keep the two entries separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.112.252 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen, read, used, and been taught the term "tuplet" for many years, long predating Finale (and PCs in general!), but I've never heard of "irrational rhythm" before now. The word "irrational" seems a poor choice as well, since the ratios are integer-related, ie, rational (= "ratio"), as the irrational rhythm pages itself points out. To my mind an irrational rhythm might be something like Conlon Nancarrow's Study No. 40, with its e:pi rhythm. But regardless, I think "tuplet" is the common and widely used name. I can provide bunches of references from diverse sources if need be. Can anyone do the same for "irrational rhythm"? Pfly 20:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can, please add some sources to this page that use the term and various notation. The page is currently unsourced. (I also oppose a merge; I'll remove the tag.) Rigadoun (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow-up: the books I have and thought might shed light on this turned out to have nothing on either the term tuplet or irrational rhythm. I checked the OED, but there is no entry for either term. So now I am not quite so sure about the history of the word tuplet (and still less sure about "irrational rhythm"!). Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for sources. Now I'm curious about the origin and use of "tuplet". Pfly (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think this article should be merged with irrational rhythm - an article which is largely incomprehensible to me but appears to be little more than a complex explanation of tuplets. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2009 (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)

I just googled and found someone's blog defining "irrational rhythm" as a time signature with a non-power or two as the lower numeral, so if you wanted a measure of five eighth-note triplets, for example, you might use a time signature if 5/12, since an eighth-note triplet is one-twelfth as long as a whole note. Now, in certain circumstances you might achieve the same effect with "tuplets", but since "tuplets" and "irrational rhythm", in this sense, are merely matters of notation, you can't reasonbly consider them equivalent. In my opinion "irrational rhythm", is this sense, is a particularly poor term for the notation described, since the numbers are not irrational and it's an attempt to solve notational problem, not a rhythmic problem. TheScotch (talk) 18:33, 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)

Ratio notation

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)

The number indicates a ratio whether it's explicit denoted or not. The ratio notation is explained later in the paragraph. If you think the wording is poor, improve it. It probably would be better if the illustration and the text referenced the same numerical ratio, however. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nested tuplets

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)

Related to more than music

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.

Merge: Tuplet & Irrational rhythm

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)

They're not the same thing. See my comments under the other "merge" section. "Irrational rhythm" should be called "non-binary time signatures" and discussed in the "time signature" article. TheScotch (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Previously, no general term?

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)

In my opinion "tuplet" is just slang, a loose way of speaking. Triplets, quintuplets, and so on, look complex on paper, but that's just a trick of notation. To the ear, they're merely divisions like any other. The problem, of course, is that note values (which are a matter of notation, not a matter of rhythm) are all powers of two, and that's far too limiting.TheScotch (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonuplet

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)

Wouldn't 9 in the time of 6 be the same as 3 in the time of 2 three times in a row? In other words, three regular triplets? Pfly (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Internet site that says this is:

http://www.musicarrangers.com/star-theory/t13.htm Georgia guy (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does say 9 in the time of 6, but the musical illustration shows 9 in the time of 8. Maybe it's his Australian accent? Seriously, though, a nonuplet in a bar of 6/8 would have to be 9 in the space of 6, yes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

6/8 is an x/8 time signature, and a division of an eighth note is 9 sixty-fourth nonuplets. Georgia guy (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, OK. A division of an eighth note in any meter whatsoever is nine sixty-fourth nonuplets. So, when you divide a 6/8 bar into nine equal notes, what value do you use (eighths? quarters? sixteenths?) and how many of them are being replaced by those nine notes? I would use eighths, and they would necessarily displace six normal eighths, since that is exactly the number of eighth notes in one bar of 6/8 time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If I were writing a piece in 6/8 and wanted to divide a bar into 9 notes, I would switch the time signature to 9/8 and change the tempo so that the complete bar lengths will have the same tempo (but the note durations would not have the same tempo.) For clarification, this means that in a 6/8 bar the tempo could be (eighth note = 100) and then I would switch to 9/8 and write (eighth note = 150) for that bar. Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thought: to distinguish 9 in the time of 6 from 9 in the time of 8, has any musician proposed a notation for each kind?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article itself has the answer! You could write 9:6 or 9:8 to clarify. But, how do we count the rhythm?? The first 9 members of the sequence of divisions of the beat in x/4 time signatures is:

• 1 quarter note (1)
• 2 eighth notes (1-and)
• 3 eighth note triplets (1-and-then or 1-and-a)
• 4 sixteenth notes (1-e-and-a)
• 5 sixteenth quintuplets (1-e-and-a-then)
• 6 sixteenth sextuplets (1-e-and-a-then-a)
• 7 sixteenth septuplets (1-e-and-a-then-and-a)
• 8 thirty-second notes (1-e-and-a-then-e-and-a)
• 9 thirty-second nonuplets (1-e-a-and-e-a-then-e-a)

• But, how about a bar of 6/8 made of 9 eighth nonuplets in the usual time of 6?? Each note has 2/3 the division of the eighth note beat, and so it isn't a regular division. How can we count it?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several ways of accomplishing the same thing, notationally, of course. All I was trying to get at is that, although in most cases of duple rhythm, the notational device of nonuplets replaces eight note values with nine of the same symbol, in a compound meter such as 6/8, a nonuplet notated to span an entire bar will necessarily replace six eighth notes with nine eighth notes. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the minority practice of replacing values in the opposite direction for larger-n tuplets, in which case you will write nine sixteenth-note nonuplets in place of twelve normal sixteenths. How you count it is up to you, but if you are asking for advice, I would suggest counting a "drag triplet" across the two beats of the bar (which is the same thing as reconfiguring the notes of the bar as in 3/4 time) and then dividing each resulting value into threes. FWIW, we do not normally count smaller subdivisions like this, anyway—they go by too fast for that. This is the main reason they are called "irrational rhythms".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the phrase "two beats". How much of an expert are you on 6 vs. 2 as the number of beats in a 6/8 bar?? If 6/8 is felt as having 2 beats, it is commonly called fast 6/8; 6 beats is slow 6/8. Georgia guy (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable way of distinguishing two uses of the meter, though I would not say "commonly called". Certainly the faster form, counted as two to a bar, is far more common for 6/8 (marches, jigs, etc.). In my experience, when composers want the slower, six-to-a-bar form, they tend to write 6/4, because it more closely resembles a pair of 3/4 bars combined. In any case, a slow tempo marking with a cautionary marking of "in six" is a good idea.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Playing with sextuplets

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)

This is usually notated as an eighth note followed by four sixteenths, with a bracketed 6 over the figure, though it could have a 3 instead (signifying eighth-note triplets, only with the last two each divided in half). Is this something that needs adding to the article?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I feel sure some info is needed. Discuss this with others before deciding. Georgia guy (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sextuplet interpretation

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)

See Counting (music), though it currently is a stub. Hyacinth (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't talk about distinguishing the 2 kinds of sextuplets, namely 1-e-and-a-then-a and 1-and-a-then-and-a; I would like to know how to distinguish them. Georgia guy (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One Internet site says that 1-e-and-a-then-a is the true sextuplet and 1-and-a-then-and-a is the false sextuplet. (This site is one of a kind that Google labels as "Google Books result". Georgia guy (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never heard of this distinction before. Is it a recent book? Of course, this is entirely to do with how you perform the rhythm, and little if anything to do with the notation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This can be found by doing a Google search on true sextuplet. Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not that interesting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikia

Does Wikia have any wiki that can talk about tuplets in detail?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

The items now listed in further reading, all but three, seem general to music and not specific to tuplets:

• Baker, Theodore (ed.). 1895. A Dictionary of Musical Terms, third edition, revised and enlarged. [New York]: G. Schirmer.
• Köhler, Louis. 1858. Systematische Lehrmethode für Clavierspiel und Musik: Theoretisch und praktisch, 2 vols.. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.
• Lobe, Johann Christian. 1881. Catechism of Music, new and improved edition, edited and revised from the 20th German edition by John Henry Cornell, translated by Fanny Raymond Ritter. New York: G. Schirmer. (First edition of English translation by Fanny Raymond Ritter. New York: J. Schuberth 1867.)
• Marx, Adolf Bernhard. 1853. Universal School of Music, translated from the fifth edition of the original German by August Heinrich Wehrhan. London.
• Shedlock, Emma L. 1876. A Trip to Music-Land: An Allegorical and Pictorial Exposition of the Elements of Music. London, Glasgow, and Edinburgh: Blackie & Son.
• Stainer, John, and William Alexander Barrett. 1876. A Dictionary of Musical Terms. London: Novello, Ewer and Co.
• Taylor, Franklin. 1879–89. "Sextolet". A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. 1450–1883) by Eminent Writers, English and Foreign, 4 vols, edited by Sir George Grove, 3:478. London: Macmillan and Co.

Any reason they should stay? Hyacinth (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me a little time, and you will see why I added them. The text they verify has not been added yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fourth-level tuplets

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)

One example may be found in Haydn's Piano Sonata in C major, H. XVI:50, second movement (Adagio), bar 35, where the third beat is divided into 18 equal divisions. I think you will probably find similar examples throughout the 18th and 19th-century piano literature, chiefly in slow movements. Of course, such passages are merely very fast runs of a cadenza-like character which, in performance, are not really "measured" against anything. Similar figurations are found in the written-out ornamentations found in the slow movements of some early 18th-century solo sonatas, but numerals are not usually supplied and the performer is meant simply to fit the required number of notes into the available space any way he can. An ornamented version of the fourth movement of Corelli's op. 5, no. 1, for example, is found in an edition arranged for flute and published in Paris around 1745. The movement is in 3/2 time and the solo part divides bar 40 into 17 equal-length notes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that Michael Finnissy has used some in his works for piano. In the english country tunes there are instances of 23:20 and 30:16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.34.207 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

issue with image

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)

If you read the accompanying text carefully, I believe you will discover that "correctly" depends on your authority (that is to say, the one book you have consulted is not the only reliable opinion on the matter), and this is precisely what the image is meant to illustrate. That said, I think the caption on the illustration, as well as the accompanying text could be improved to make this point clearer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Time signature of septuplet image

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)

Are you saying that 1/1 ought to have been used instead? It is certainly much less common than 4/4, but I don't understand your question. The example would be equally valid in 2/2 or 8/8—or indeed with no signature at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The measure talks about dividing a whole note into 7 parts. I say 1/1 is a more natural time signature for this measure because 4/4, implying a quarter note beat, can make it difficult to keep track of. If we think of it as 1/1, it is:

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)

Gosh! I thought that was the whole point! (Also 7 against 8).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:29, 25 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)

What would 1/1 imply?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Basic time signatures: 4/4, also known as common time (C); 2/2, also known as cut time or cut-common time (¢); plus 2/4; 3/4 & 6/8 [from Time signature#Simple time signatures]

See time signature. A time signature, "is a notational convention used in Western musical notation to specify how many beats are in each measure and which note value constitutes one beat." Thus 4/4 says 4 beats per measure with the quarter note as the beat, while 1/1 says 1 beat per measure with the whole note as the beat. You rarely if ever (List of musical works in unusual time signatures#1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16) find 1/1. Most importantly, the norm, in 4/4, is divisions of 4 or 8, with a division of 7 being occasionally or rarely (if ever) thrown in or added on top, and the notation correctly shows this by making, in 4/4, divisions of 4 or 8 standard and divisions of 7 nonstandard, tuplets. Hyacinth (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because a time signature is rare doesn't mean it's wrong. Georgia guy (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See below: 1/1 doesn't help anything. Further, we're not showing examples in a way they would rarely if ever occur. It would be like a picture of a polar bear in a jungle, or a picture of a cheetah in tundra. It could happen (say if someone dropped one from a helicopter and took a picture before it died), and in that sense the pictures wouldn't be "wrong", but they wouldn't be good examples for the polar bear or cheetah articles. Hyacinth (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes they would be wrong. A polar bear doesn't live in a jungle; it lives in either a zoo or the Arctic. Georgia guy (talk) 21:35, 27 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)

The septuplet was chosen because it is a popular example to know that it can mean either 7:4 or 7:8. I'm sure the sextuplet always means 6:4. Georgia guy (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my question: given 1/1. Hyacinth (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Any n-tuplet where n is not a power of 2 can go in any time signature. Georgia guy (talk) 21:53, 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)

It looks to me as if this explanation is in fact given. Right next to the example I find the sentence: "Some numbers are used inconsistently: for example septuplets (septolets or septimoles) usually indicate 7 notes in the duration of 4—or in compound meter 7 for 6—but may sometimes be used to mean 7 notes in the duration of 8 (Read 1964, 183–84)". Is anything more needed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added a few sentences to explicitly spell it out. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Part of it is OK, but I trust you can provide a source for the other part, which looks like Original Research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.graphire.com/Pages/Support/supportnotefaq.htm Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is meant as the requested source, then it belongs on the article page, rather than here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, one more thing: I see that duplet and quadruplet notation in compound meter is now discussed in two different places in the article, with substantially the same content, though phrased differently. Since there is a designated section for this, it seems preferable to move all of this discussion there, rather than confuse things by introducing it with septuplets.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming the notes

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)

Your small point is well-taken, though in my experience Europeans are far more likely to be familiar with the American terminology (which is, after all, merely taken over from the German nomenclature) than Americans are to be familiar with the European (which, by the way, should be noire, croche, etc., since French is of course the standard language across Europe and indeed the entire world ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 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)

Perhaps you missed the winky face emoji at the end of Jerome's comment. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:30, 11 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)

Anyway, I suppose the point is that although Britain resides within Europe (just not continental Europe), it's strange to call idiosyncratic British terminology "European" when other countries in Europe don't use it. (The Germans and Americans name note values according to their relative duration. This is the most reasonable approach since note values exist after all only to show relative duration. The French name note values according to how their notation appears ("blanche" because the notehead is not filled, "noire" because it is, "croche" because the stem hoists a flag--or hook--and so on). This is not illogical, but neither is it particularly helpful for understanding the meaning of note values. The British terms atavistically carry over from an earlier notational system, which makes them, at the very least, incongruous.) TheScotch (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

citations, wtf?

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)

There is no accounting for taste. The latter version is not just harder to read, it is completely incomprehensible.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Quadruplet figure in drumming" section

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)

A drummer gave birth to quadruplets. She wanted to name them all Anna

“How are we goman tell them apart?” asked her husband.

She replied “Anna 1, Anna 2...”

[sorry, this is the only useful thing I could find when Googling "drumming quadruplets". Anonymous user seems to be correct, that drummers use "quadruplet" basically to mean a group of four sixteenth notes, with no special meaning. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Triplet section

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)

I agree that the German, French, Italian, Spanish words for triplet are not needed and distracting. OTOH, the English terms for quarter notes, half notes, etc, are definitely needed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:15, 6 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)

Notation

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)

It's mentioned briefly at the beginning of the "Notation" section, but I agree a visual example would be helpful. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)