Triplets

[Febs]

I think you need to understand the difference between "Tied" and "Beamed". It is quite significant and affects the rhythm dramatically.

Yes, please be careful that you are using the correct terms! Look at this example from wikipedia:

The notes in the first example are bracketed with a triplet bracket. The notes in the second and third measure are beamed. Contrast this to the example below of two notes that are tied:

These terms are not interchangeable.

 

[Febs]

With that said, I can't recall ever seeing an example in practice of a note in a tuplet being shorter than the note defining the tuplet. For example, I cannot recall ever seeing an eighth note within a quarter note triplet as in our example, and I wonder whether is correct notation.

I'm an idiot. Forget everything I said above aboout eighth note sextuplets. Of course you wouldn't write eighth note sextuplets. You would write two eighth note triplets. And I think that is the answer to my notation question: the reason that you wouldn't usually see a figure like the one in post 11 is because that figure can be further subdivided to better illustrate where the beat falls, in much the same way that you would sometimes prefer an eighth note note tied to a quarter note rather than a dotted quarter note, even though both have the same value.

Fergie, look at the attached example. Does this illustrate what you have been trying to say? It would be played exactly the same way as the example in post 11, but more clearly shows where the beat falls.

 

[Jake of Bass]

I'm an idiot. Forget everything I said above aboout eighth note sextuplets. Of course you wouldn't write eighth note sextuplets. You would write two eighth note triplets. And I think that is the answer to my notation question: the reason that you wouldn't usually see a figure like the one in post 11 is because that figure can be further subdivided to better illustrate where the beat falls, in much the same way that you would sometimes prefer an eighth note note tied to a quarter note rather than a dotted quarter note, even though both have the same value.

Fergie, look at the attached example. Does this illustrate what you have been trying to say? It would be played exactly the same way as the example in post 11, but more clearly shows where the beat falls.

I'm glad you corrected yourself because I went to bed thinking "Huh? What's he on about?" because I'm usually pretty damn good at reading rhythm, but the sextuplets were a little confusing.

Now I've woken, read this and gone "Ahhh!". Makes sense once more.

 

[Febs]

I'm glad you corrected yourself because I went to bed thinking "Huh? What's he on about?" because I'm usually pretty damn good at reading rhythm, but the sextuplets were a little confusing.

Now I've woken, read this and gone "Ahhh!". Makes sense once more.

I think I was a little delirious with fever when I wrote the bit about eighth note septuplets.

 

[ryco]

Hello,
I was just wondering; are triplets composed of eighths or sixteenths?
The reason I ask is the piece of music I'm working on right now has a measure that starts with a half note followed by two triplets (in 4/4). The first note of the first triplet is an eighth rest (so that means eighths, right?). What I'm getting hung up on is does the eighth rest fall on "3" or the "and" before 3? I'm a little confused on this.

The rest falls on "3".

 

[EADG mx]

Ah, a typical talkbass discussion.

Post #1: Question
Post #2+3: Answers
Post #4-60: Pointless B.S., with redundant rehashings of posts #2+3 in different wordings.

 

[HaVIC5]

Post 4-60 usually consisting of a large argument between most of TB and one stubborn poster.

 

[EADG mx]

Can I be that poster?

Triplets are when you play three strings at once like Justin Chancellor in a galloping rhythm like Steve Harris.

 

[HaVIC5]

Hooray!

 

[Jake of Bass]

Can I be that poster?

Triplets are when you play three strings at once like Justin Chancellor in a galloping rhythm like Steve Harris.

Steve Harris usually plays that galloping rhythm as an 8th note followed by two 16th notes to comprise one beat, repeat and repeat and repeat. So technically, not triplets

 

[HaVIC5]

Hooray missing the sarcasm!

 

[Jake of Bass]

Hooray missing the sarcasm!

Dude, it's the GI forum. We're all meant to be completely anal and pedantic here

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I'm an idiot. Forget everything I said above aboout eighth note sextuplets. Of course you wouldn't write eighth note sextuplets. You would write two eighth note triplets. And I think that is the answer to my notation question: the reason that you wouldn't usually see a figure like the one in post 11 is because that figure can be further subdivided to better illustrate where the beat falls, in much the same way that you would sometimes prefer an eighth note note tied to a quarter note rather than a dotted quarter note, even though both have the same value.

Fergie, look at the attached example. Does this illustrate what you have been trying to say? It would be played exactly the same way as the example in post 11, but more clearly shows where the beat falls.

Let me first start by saying that my post in 12 is wrong and I appoligise and can now see the obssesion with the triplet theory. It shoulds have read "un-tie the quavers" not "tie the quaver" and once again appoligise.
Yes above what you have shown is what i'm getting at.
The term "duty to the bar" which i use refers to the key sig., the time sig. the grouping which should show the beat whenever possible in a bar.
The example you have is what i was saying sound and plays the same as post 11 not what i wrote which is wrong.
Once again sorry for the misunderstanding, maybe i will get some of this software stuff.

As for the tied and beam comments all i'm trying to do is find a term that is accceptable here. It seem that people here can pick and choose when theory terms are acceptable and when not, like if i go to Detriot i might get my ass kicked for talking in crotchets and quaver, dammed if i do, dammed if i don't it seems

 

[headonastick]

It's not about different terminology for the same thing though. A tie and a bracket indicating a triplet are totally different concepts. I don't know how you think that the bar in post 11 could be written any more clearly –*it is completely clear and unambiguous as it is. The location of the beats don't have to be clearly marked for triplets –*a musician reading it is expected to know that anyway.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

It's not about different terminology for the same thing though. A tie and a bracket indicating a triplet are totally different concepts. I don't know how you think that the bar in post 11 could be written any more clearly –*it is completely clear and unambiguous as it is. The location of the beats don't have to be clearly marked for triplets –*a musician reading it is expected to know that anyway.

At the fear of repeating myself i will. My post was wrong as i have stated for the simple reason giving and i apoligise again. If you read what i posted i'm trying to highlight its duty to the bar, of which part was the beat.
In notation, in my experience a good composer will always try and group to show the beat, which is why i said i would question it if it was put in front of me, thats just me reading more in to it than i should, and would have be corrected then and there by the composer, arranger who ever, end of topic.
If you don't know how the bar could be written more clearly look at post 56 to see what i was very mistakenly trying to show. That of course is a matter of opinion, but this whole thing, from my point of view is to keep it simple so the OP can see the beat, so he associates that phrase like a word and play its rhythm regardless of how it is voiced.
From the point of other more skilled readers this is not such an issue

 

[EADG mx]

Guys, it's like this:

it's 3 notes in the space of 2. You can have various divisions, ties, and rests within that grouping too as long as they add up.


Can we stop now?

 

[Jake of Bass]

Indeed.

Triplets can be considered a measure of compound time in what is overall a simple time signature.

Probably should've said "Triplets can be considered to be a segment of compound time within simple time".

 

[OwenMick]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Fergie Fulton]

Indeed.



Probably should've said "Triplets can be considered to be a segment of compound time within simple time".

Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeee...play nice LOL

 

[Febs]

Let me first start by saying that my post in 12 is wrong and I appoligise and can now see the obssesion with the triplet theory. It shoulds have read "un-tie the quavers" not "tie the quaver" and once again appoligise.

As for the tied and beam comments all i'm trying to do is find a term that is accceptable here. It seem that people here can pick and choose when theory terms are acceptable and when not, like if i go to Detriot i might get my ass kicked for talking in crotchets and quaver, dammed if i do, dammed if i don't it seems

No, no, no, no. There are some terms, like "eighth-notes" and "quavers," that mean the same thing and in an international forum like this, you can use either one and have a reasonable chance of being understood. If you use the word "crotchet" instead of "quarter-note," someone in the United States who reads your post and doesn't recognize the word can look it up and find out exactly what you mean. There is nothing wrong with using the word "crotchet."

However, as I said above, the terms "tie," "beam," and "bracket" are not interchangeable. You keep using the word "tie" when you really mean either "bracket" or "beam," and this *is* wrong and has led to a great deal of confusion in this thread.

Brackets and beams both can be used to denote tuplets. The general rule is that for unbeamed notes (e.g., quarter notes/crotchets) you denote a tuplet with a bracket. The first measure of the first example in post 55 demonstrates this.

For notes that are already beamed, however, you can omit the bracket and designate the tuplet by putting a number (the number 3 in the case of a triplet) over or under the beam. The second and third measures of the example in post 55 demonstrates this.

A "tie," on the other hand, connects the heads of two notes of the same pitch, indicating that they are to be played as a single note with a duration equal to the sum of the individual notes' note values.

So these are very, very different concepts. A tie does not change the duration of a note; a tuplet bracket or a beam with a tuplet designation does change the duration of the note.