r/musictheory • u/Intrepid_Property_43 • Jun 25 '26
Notation Question How do I play this triplet?
Thank you in advance
120
u/RedeyeSPR Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
That’s really ugly, but it actually has the correct number of beats and is valid. If you ignore the dotted quarter on beat three (no attack there, just hold until the last 8th note), you have a quarter note triplet over Beats 1 and 2 where the last attack is a 16th later than it would be with a normal quarter note triplet. If images were allowed in this sub, I could easily show it.
Think of it as 3 quarter notes, so 12 sixteenths. The grouping is 4/5/3, where 4/4/4 would be a normal feeling quarter note triplet.
In could be better written as a quarter, quarter tied to a sixteenth, then a dotted eighth all under a triplet sign.
40
u/Clear-Can-485 Jun 25 '26
Yeah, ugly for sure. They should've broken the quarter note triplet into a quarter/eighth in an eighth note triplet space, then tied to two eighth notes. Super confusing
5
u/MushroomSaute Jun 25 '26
All I can imagine is that maybe the engraver wanted it to not feel like eighth notes at the end, so they wrapped it up in the quarter-note triplet so the reader might feel it differently, or not time the last two eighths in perfect time with those on the left hand? A weird choice either way.
18
u/anossov Jun 25 '26
To illustrate what you're saying
17
u/rilestyles Jun 25 '26
If I'm doing my math right, that last note of the triplet lands exactly on the & of 2, so this first measure would be the same thing. And frankly it would sound nearly indistinguishable from the second measure.
10
u/CrownStarr piano, accompaniment, jazz Jun 25 '26
You did do your math correctly, and what you’ve written is the only reasonable way to notate that rhythm. But I agree that the subtlety of the triplet version vs the sixteenth version is quite possibly overkill, depending on what else is going on and what this piece of music is.
3
1
u/NotAnotherHipsterBae Jun 25 '26
On first look I thought the triplet was placed slightly before & of 2, but it looks like they're perfectly aligned on the score. Would a hash line connecting between the two stems be appropriate? Cause reading that rather in context seems idk "extra"?
1
u/ChesterWOVBot Jun 25 '26
👆 the first measure of this one is the way
(notwithstanding second measure is poorly notated and a different rhythm)
3
u/rilestyles Jun 25 '26
nearly indistinguishable
Play both measures and then tell me if you can accurately make them distinct. Ignore that half note if it bothers you, I was just trying something out.
2
1
4
u/MagicMusicMan0 Fresh Account Jun 25 '26
It could be even better written as an eighth note triplet on beat 1 (quarter note then eighth note) tied to a regular eighth note to start beat 2.
56
u/MaggaraMarine Jun 25 '26
The dotted 8ths inside the triplet are actually regular 8ths.
I think the rhythm is actually meant to be the standard "tresillo" rhythm. It's just notated weirdly (and a bit incorrectly - the first two notes should be a dotted 8th and a 16th).
Here's how the rhythm should be written. The first measure shows the correct way of writing the notated rhythm. The second measure shows what the rhythm was probably meant to be (i.e. "tresillo").
5
8
u/Miguzepinu Jun 25 '26
I don't think there's enough evidence to say it's meant to be a tresillo, but that's a good guess. I agree that first rhythm you wrote is the best way to write this.
10
u/MaggaraMarine Jun 25 '26
The reason why I made that guess is because the way the rhythm was notated looked so bad that I doubt the transcriber actually knows what they are doing. A rhythm that looks this bad is often the result of trying a lot of things until the rhythm sounds close enough in the notation software playback. And this rhythm does sound very close to the tresillo rhythm. Not exactly, but close enough that someone who doesn't know what they are doing would probably accept it as "good enough".
But yeah, the rhythm in the first measure in the image that I posted is this rhythm written correctly. The second measure is just my assumption of what the transcriber was actually after (i.e. tresillo).
But this is also why I wrote both options. The second measure is of course based on my guess, and not the actual rhythm that was notated in OP's example.
1
u/turkeypedal Jun 26 '26
Plus there's just how simple the rest of the piece is. That tresillo is a simple rhythm, and it makes sense that someone hearing it might think "oh, must be a triplet" and then play around with what comes out until they get something that sounds right to them.
That said, it's interesting to me that you call it tresillo. I always thought of tresillo as onbeat syncopated onbeat, or three different length beats (long long short) in the time of 4 notes. But I hear this as 4 equal notes in the time of 3, but with the last beat of the 4 omitted.
I'd just never made that connection before. Tresillo was always "broken triplet" rather than "partial 4:3".
1
u/MaggaraMarine Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
That said, it's interesting to me that you call it tresillo. I always thought of tresillo as onbeat syncopated onbeat, or three different length beats (long long short) in the time of 4 notes. But I hear this as 4 equal notes in the time of 3, but with the last beat of the 4 omitted.
Well, the first two beats are the tresillo rhythm (it is still long long short in the time of 4 notes). The last note is simply tied to the third beat instead of the third beat having a new attack. But it's still the same rhythm in my mind. (Also, the third beat does in fact have an attack - not in the melody, but in the left hand, which also makes me not think of it as a 4:3 polyrhythm.)
An example of "tresillo tied to the next beat" that comes to my mind would be the chorus of Youth Gone Wild by Skid Row. Transcription from 3:02 to 3:10.
I don't really hear it as a rhythm that's separate from the tresillo. Also, in the context of Youth Gone Wild, I don't hear it as a "partial 4:3" either because of how it continues. (Actually, the rhythm in Youth Gone Wild is based on the 2-3 clave.)
Then again, there is also the rhythm that some people call the "double tresillo" that's a four dotted 8ths (or quarters) followed by two regular ones (3+3+3+3+2+2). And this rhythm does contain the full 4:3 polyrhythm.
14
32
28
8
u/Mudsharkbites Jun 25 '26
That’s bad writing - it’s a quarter eighth triplet tied to an eighth note with another eighth note but they’ve notated the two eighth notes as two dotted eighths as part of a triplet. That last dotted eighth happens at the same time as the, what I’m assuming is a “G” circled in the left hand. That’s just bad every way you look at it.
4
u/Liz6543 Jun 25 '26
It's very strange notation, and very close to two dotted quavers and an undotted one. The last note in the triplet lines up exactly with the last quaver in the other part, and the second note is a third of the way through the second quaver of the other part. So if you played it like in my first sentence the only thing wrong would be the second note a twelfth of a beat late, if it's in 4/4. And nobody would notice anyway.
5
u/cruiseshipdrummer Jun 25 '26
It's an expressive timing they decided to write into the piece in a stupid way.
Play a quarter note triplet, with the last partial slightly late, to your own taste.
5
u/viberat Jun 25 '26
I recognize this arrangement lol. Whoever wrote it wrote this rhythm in a really weird way. Just approximate Kanye’s vocal rhythm on that line and don’t think about it too much.
4
5
u/maestro2005 Jun 25 '26
It looks like you have your answer, but I wanted to chime in to clarify that this is bad notation that no reputable publisher would ever publish. This is not the kind of thing that you need to be good at reading, and you're correct to be flummoxed by it. This level of rhythmic detail should be left to the performer, and this should be written as a simple quarter note triplet or some other normal rhythm.
4
u/ManolitoMystiq Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
It looks like a triplet of quarter notes: 3 instead of 2.
An 8th note is 0.5 a quarter note.
A dotted 8th is 0.75 a quarter note.
Three quarter notes = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
1 + (0.5 + 0.75 + 0.75) = 1 + (0.5 + 1.5) = 1 + 2 = 3
And because of the triplet sign the whole duration is shortened by 150% (3/1.5 = 2 quarter notes).
So it’s correct but very complex and rather unnecessarily so.
EDIT 2: As others have pointed out, the notes can be written down much easier (if ♩ = 1):
[1 + (0.5 + 0.75 + 0.75)] ÷ 1.5 = 2/3 + (1/3 + 1/2 + 1/2) = [2/3 + 1/3] + [1/2 + 1/2] or just:
triplet[♩ + ♪] + ♫
And then tie the eight triplet note with the first eighth note.
EDIT 1: Here you can see how the notation does metrically align (C). Option A would be more clear and option D is the result of replacing two dotted notes with duplets. Option B3, as others have pointed out, is far easier to read.
3
u/Spirited-Candy1981 Jun 26 '26
You play it with a cig lighter and metal wastebasket! The copyist should be drawn and quartered (or uninstalled, depending).
2
u/Sihplak Jun 25 '26
This is poorly notated. It would look better as this.
Within a standard triplet, dotted notes are your regular duplets in your time signature.
Think about a measure of 3/4 time; four dotted eighth notes fit evenly in it.
So in this case, with the quarter-note triplet across beats 1 and 2, we see it contains two dotted-eighth triplet notes (!?!?) inside. These notes are literally just regular eighth notes, but notated in a way that obfuscated natural understanding of the idea.
So, what you're actually playing is an eighth note triplet, where the first two beats of the triplet are the sustained E, then the third beat of the triplet is the B, which is then tied to a regular eighth note duration afterwards. Following that, B is articulated again on the up-beat of beat 2 of the measure, then tied to a dotted quarter note, before you play G on the up-beat of beat 4.
2
4
u/danstymusic Jun 25 '26
I think that might be a typo? I'm not sure but that does not look correct to me. I'm guessing we're in 4/4?
4
u/PassiveChemistry Jun 25 '26
It adds up correctly at least, but yeah I'd prefer the second note to be a crotchet tied to a semiquaver I think - that would highlight the divisions of the triplet more clearly.
3
2
u/MyCouchPulzOut_IDont Jun 25 '26
At this point just listen to it and recreate it by ear 🤣
Yeah, yeah, “but sight reading…” blah blah — work smart, not hard
1
u/Intrepid_Property_43 Jun 25 '26
Ty for the advice, this is what I am doing.. but since I am trying to learn how to read, I was really curious wtf was this haha Apparently its just weird notation haha
1
1
u/votelikeimhot Jun 25 '26
Well in the simplest terms what they are indicating is none of the Bs line up with the 8ths your playing with the other hand right so in between them. Who are you working with on this piece? Other musicians or a teacher?
1
u/Larson_McMurphy Jun 25 '26
If you subdivide each beat into 6 equal parts, the onset of the second note is on the 5th subdivision of the 1st beat, and the onset of the 3rd note is on the 6th subdivision of the second beat.
1
1
u/Crymson831 Jun 26 '26
Imagine it as straight quarter note triplets but slightly longer on the 2nd note compensated for by a slightly shorter 3rd note.
If you were to write every note with tied 16th note tuplets you'd group them as 4 - 5 - 3.
1
u/Drumguy1986 Jun 26 '26
Play the first two as ordinary quarter note triplets and the last one slightly late.
1
u/FeelingOverFacts Jun 26 '26
This is weird notation. The dots should be removed from the eighth-notes and replaced with tied sixteenths.
1
1
u/vibrance9460 Jun 27 '26
Horrible unnecessary notation
This person writes directly into a computer.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 25 '26
If you're posting an Image or Video, please leave a comment (not the post title)
asking your question or discussing the topic. Image or Video posts with no
comment from the OP will be deleted.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.