NOTATIO

ADDON:

I think the whole measure quadruplet should be 4 — that solves the mystery.
 

Why I put 4 at the first?
Because I calculated that there are three in the measure, completely omitting that there are NO three beats (3/8) but two beats (6/16)!  So I assumed that there are 4:3 , but in reality 2:3 + 2:3 = 4:6
 
 
You are welcome commenting!

OCTO wrote: 16 Jun 2026, 13:21 My brain will explode.

Let's hope not.

OCTO wrote: 16 Jun 2026, 13:21 But in the lower quadruplet, we have four notes in the time of two notes, not three, and each of those notes is dotted.

In the upper quadruplet, on the other hand, we have four notes in the time of three notes, not two.

I might be very mistaken but I can't get it.

In 6/16 time there can be 3 eighth notes although the pulse seems to be 2 dotted eighth notes per bar, so the lower quadruplet is correct.

Yes, we can have three eights in 6/16 but, as you say, they don't constitute the beats, except the first one, and should be notated properly: Similarly in 6/8 it is wrong to notate (except some polymetric latin music etc.).

OCTO wrote: 16 Jun 2026, 14:09 Yes, we can have three eights in 6/16 but, as you say, they don't constitute the beats, except the first one, and should be notated properly:
ScreenShot 2026-06-16 at 16.06.49.png

Similarly in 6/8 it is wrong to notate (except some polymetric latin music etc.).

Yes, but the eighth notes are not notated, they are only calculated with to reach the middle between the dotted eighth notes.

OCTO wrote: 16 Jun 2026, 13:43

I think the whole measure quadruplet should be 4 — that solves the mystery.

That’s what I said before.

Without ratios, it’s 16th note quadruplet, 16th note quituplet, and 32nd note quadruplet from the bottom up in that 3 staff example.

With ratios, it’s 4:6, 5:6, and 4:6 with 16th beams on the first two and 32nd beams on the last.

This is read as “4 16ths in the time of 6 16ths, 5 16ths in the time of 6 16ths, and 4 32nds in the time of 6 32nds”.

in 6/8 the measure-long quadruplet would have 1 beam.

In 6/16 that doubles.

David Ward wrote: 15 Jun 2026, 18:36 I think that according to the strictest traditional practice it ought to be five quavers (eighths) in the time of three, on the principle that a tuplet is for more in the time of fewer.

Yes, that is correct.

Magnus Johansson wrote: 19 Jun 2026, 06:18

Yes, that is correct.

It this not correct:



If the dotted 8th, 1 measure-long note in 6/16 was a duplet, it would have 1 beam. 2 8th notes in the time of 3 8th notes (so contrary to what @David Ward said).

Wouldn’t 4 notes in that same amount of time have 4 beams?

Or is everyone just ignoring that convention, or am I misunderstanding?

LSL2026 wrote: 19 Jun 2026, 19:48

Magnus Johansson wrote: 19 Jun 2026, 06:18

Yes, that is correct.

It this not correct:



If the dotted 8th, 1 measure-long note in 6/16 was a duplet, it would have 1 beam. 2 8th notes in the time of 3 8th notes (so contrary to what @David Ward said).

Wouldn’t 4 notes in that same amount of time have 4 beams?

Or is everyone just ignoring that convention, or am I misunderstanding?

I do not think you misunderstand, and everyone is not ignoring the convention or "principle that a tuplet is for more in the time of fewer" as David wrote meaning that it shall look like the bar has a metric surplus instead of a deficit. However, regarding duplets it is not uncommon to go the other way and let the bar have a deficit instead of a surplus like in the music examples you provided.

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."