Placement of tuplets

[Anders Hedelin]

In a job with avantgarde music I'm working on, I've encountered a problem with the placement of tuplet signs (numbers and brackets). The composer claims that they should always be placed on the "right side" of the staff - the stem side - and asked me to change several hundreds of them that I had placed differently (in line with the second example below).

Gould presents a basic rule for tuplet placement:

Gould - tuplets.JPG (21.04 KiB) Viewed 6471 times

On the next page she introduces exceptions from the basic rule, to achieve a less stiff and more developed notation:

Gould - tuplets b.JPG (46.92 KiB) Viewed 6471 times

So far, so good.

But then I looked into a few 20th century scores, and found surprisingly little consistency in how to place, or even write, tuplets.

So I began to wonder: Where does this "basic rule" come from really?
That notation programs have this as the rule is neither here nor there, I think. And I wouldn't expect Gould to have learnt this from that source.

Can someone shed some light on this? Where does the rule come from, and why should it be regarded as the basic rule at all?

[Shinohara Hoshi]

Deleted

[OCTO]

So I began to wonder: Where does this "basic rule" come from really?

I believe that the rule is similar to where the beams are placed. Usually the tuplet should be placed at the "beaming" side.

Thus in "Gould - tuplets b.JPG", the example is actually wrong. The first tuplet should be above, and the second tuplet should be below. Yet, she actually makes confusion by introducing a new parameter "avoiding slurs and hairpins". Totally un-didactic!

Bartok broke numerous rules in beaming for instance. But one should have a very good reason for it. Bartok has it.

[Anders Hedelin]

Your general survey of the evolution of music notation is pretty much what I think myself, and not really what I was asking, Shinohara.
My question was much more specific. When and why did the basic rule of tuplet placement emanate?

Possibly it's impossible to find an answer to that question, but I'm wondering which options there were when the development of music notation programs like Finale, Sibelius and Igor fx. got started. At that time 'Behind Bars' wasn't yet written, and my guess is that these early developers studied other 'reference books' quite carefully, Ross' fx. I don't own a copy of Ross' book, so I don't know what he had to say in the matter. I've noticed that some members here refer to Ross, sometimes in great detail, so maybe they could chime in?

Gould's work should not be considered an authority on music engraving, but it is indeed a good reference book.

Well, I don't read Gould's book like a Bible. Come to that, I don't read any book like a Bible, not even the Bible itself.

[Anders Hedelin]

By the way, with kind help from my client, the publisher, the composer at last agreed that my pragmatic treatment of tuplet indications were quite OK. Or quite good even.

I'm still curious about the origin of 'the hard rule' however.

[John Ruggero]

I am very glad you brought up this topic, Anders.

In the 18th and 19th centuries tuplet numbers were placed (whenever possible) on the note head side. Slurs and articulations as well. Reason: they are more visible there since our visual attention is aimed at the note heads, rather than the stems and beams. Example from Brahms Quartet no. 1 B&H complete works:

Brahms Quartet no 1 Triplets.png (559.75 KiB) Viewed 6420 times

I think that the modern idea of placing the numbers on the stem (or rather beam) side came about in an effort to use beams instead of slurs to show the tuplet groupings. Then the same principle was applied to non-beamed tuplet groups with brackets replacing the missing beams.

Personally, I think tuplet brackets are over-used. Ugly clutter. Of course, if you use a thin non-traditional font for the tuplet numbers like Gould does in her examples, then you might need them...constantly.

[Anders Hedelin]

Thank you for actually giving me an answer to my question, John!

Your explanation of why this rule has become a rule is rather plausible, I think. I still wonder why it has become such a hard rule - at least in some quarters. In the 20th century scores I looked into, there was a number of 'inconsistencies', as I mentioned before. All of the scores from well reputed editions.

In the 18th and 19th centuries tuplet numbers were placed (whenever possible) [my italicization] on the note head side.

"Whenever possible" - that says a lot, I think!

[John Ruggero]

You are very welcome, Anders.

I still wonder why it has become such a hard rule - at least in some quarters.

Hard and fast rules do make things "easier." Many aspects of music notation were nuanced in earlier times. I see a lot of sensitivity to musical values being expressed in earlier notation and engraving.

[Shinohara Hoshi]

Deleted

[John Ruggero]

I agree that music notation "customs" change with time, Shinohara Hoshi. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. The great power of personal computers makes it possible for knowledgable individuals to pick and choose what they think are the best solutions from the past and present. So the true style of the present is Eclectic.

Doing away with the tuplet slur and placing the triplet on the stem seems to have happened somewhere toward the end of the 19th century. It would be interesting to do research to find out more precisely when that was.

As I mentioned, the earlier custom was to place the number on the note head side. For example, the vast majority of tuplet numbers in Mozart's and Beethoven's piano sonatas are placed on the note head side in the existing manuscripts and first editions. And I see the same in the music of Chopin and Brahms. So it is my impression that this custom was widespread through their lifetimes.

I myself don't find the Brahms example at all difficult to read, and I am very glad that he didn't use brackets in this case in particular. It looks "just right" as it is to me.

Continuation in following post.