tuplets (3 vs 6) in 2/2

[MichelRE]

I'm looking at a score of mine that I'm engraving, and this is supposed to be the final version.
It dawns on me that the entire last movement (except for a few tiny spots) is in a very fast 2/2.
Measures tend to be evenly split, all eighth notes, or sequences of tuplets.

But now I look at this and think to myself, should I have a half bar of triplets simply be engraved as a half bar sextuplet?
When I have a couple of measures in a row with triplets, should I instead write those as a couple of measures of sextuplets?
Basically it would only alter the beams and numbers, it wouldn't actually change anything fundamental to the music.

The pulse would remain each measure divided in two.

The reason I ask is that looking at the triplets gives me the impress that the measures should be beaten in four rather than two. I'd rather avoid any potential confusion.

[David Ward]

If I understand you correctly, ie that this is about quaver (eighth note) tuplets, six to the half bar, I should go for sextuplets.

[MichelRE]

yes, 8th notes.
here and there there are syncopations, or half-beat moments with a triplet of 8th notes, which are ok as the music does wander back and forth at a rapid pace from groupings of four 8ths to six 8ths.
So I'll change the complete half bars of triplets to half bars of sextuplets.

[John Ruggero]

Except that sextuplets are now considered to be 2 + 2 + 2. If you want 3 + 3, specify triplets with numbers the first few times but beam in 6. If they were 16th triplets you could beam in six and break the secondary beam in threes. But I think that some would just stick to beaming in threes for eighth note triplets no matter what the meter and tempo,

[MichelRE]

thank-you for your input john.

By the way, the forum is incredibly PAINFULLY slow for the last few days.

[John Ruggero]

You are welcome, MichelRE.

I was about to write the same about the site. It's like writing something and then watching the "ink" dry.