OCTO wrote: 20 Jun 2026, 16:48
As I stated above, I believe that
A)
in simple time, tuplets increase the regular value until the next regular value is reached.
B)
In compound time, tuplets reduce the regular value until the next regular value is reached.
As you pointed out, it is not always a matter of "surplus," but sometimes also of "deficit."
ScreenShot 2026-06-20 at 20.19.55.png
Yes, this is the traditional way of doing it.
I said it differently - rather than “reducing to the regular value”, you can think of it as changing immediately after the regular value.
In simple meters, the value is used up to the next regular division, which changes to half duration values.
In compound meters, the value is used up to and INCLUDING the next regular division, which then immediately after changes to half duration values.
Just reading your 9/8 right to left
But I think many wanted to apply the “scaling logic” of simple meters to compound meters and in that case the duplet “would need to be” or should be quarter note duplets, not 8th note duplets.
I would argue, if I drunk and just playing devil’s advocate, that some publishers simply “used it wrong” and the standard was the “a beat in simple is a beat in compound” thinking - 4 16ths in a beat of 6/8.
And I fail to see the harm in the system for simple music and basic borrowings.
Once it gets beyond that, rather than as the ABSRM thing says - “using both in one piece”, I would be using ratios to make things crystal clear.
Because while for simple rhythms we can deduce what its based on the measure, if more rests or other nested tuplets etc. are involved that becomes less easy to do.
in simple time, meaning the tuplet of 4:3 is actually 4:6, thus four 
—notes
= 
). For metric modulations where 