Finally I've worked out how to do quarter note triplets!!!!!! After some complicated maths that left me dazed and confused , I managed to work out that if you multiply your tempo by 1.5, and use either 2 bars of 3 over 4, or one of 4 over 4 and another of 2 over 4, then use the hold (or shots) function for each beat- you will have a bar of quarter note triplets (remember to put your tempo back to original in the following bar). I feel like such a fool- it's taken me years, and it's so simple. If this is a common trick, forgive me- I don't have time to examine all the posts. I hope that this helps others to get the most out of this incredible program. Depending on the style, you might not get the exact results, and it might take your tempo out of range, but keep fiddling and it will probably come right. I got fantastic results in a backing track that I made by using this trick.
Hi Bruce,
I haven't heard of this before, it's very clever. Good on you for working it out!
In essence, you're playing 6 beats (over two bars) in the time of 4 beats in 1 bar. To get the overall tempo to remain consistent, it's necessary to play the two bars at a faster speed so that they sound like a single bar: in fact,
(original tempo)*(6/4) = (new tempo)
Or as you say,
(original tempo) * 1.5 = (new tempo)
Now that you've explained it, it's so easy to see how it works. I have to confess, though, that I'd never have found this for myself.
Impresssive! This is a great tip.
All the best,
Noel
Well done for working it out without the benefit of seeing a previous post by Tonnie last from year who came up with the same solution. How does the tempo increase work for you in the drums part or do you change style for these bars?
PS Seems to work with holds for all instruments which I presume you meant. As a jazzer this reminds me of pianist Andrew Hill who would insert this very idea but without the tempo increase into a fast 4/4 feel.
Alan
I don't remember seeing this post from Tonnie. Thanks for mentioning it. His solution is a little different.
... here's a link to itAfter Bruce's post above, I find myself wondering whether Tonnie's solution should be 50% rather that 33%. I'm inclined to think that 50% might be the better choice.
I'll have to go and test it out now and find out for myself
Regards,
Noel
P.S. Either way, both Bruce and Tonnie have opened a door for me that I would never have discovered by myself. Thank you! I really appreciate knowing this.
That hurts my brain.... :-)