How do you add tripplets to the score?
How do you add tripplets to the score?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
How do you add tripplets to the score?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
Hi there,
To add a triplet, see the link below. This is from the Handbook section. Hope this helps!
Handbook Tuplet
//musescore.org/en/handbook/tuplet
-CZ
Handbook procedure works fine if you are adding triplets to a single melodic line. If you want harmonized/parallel triplets on the same stave, however, the software falls short -- at least for me. Rather than add notes above or below the initial triplet, MuseScore merely changes the pitch of that one note. You have to work around this by using the Voices command, which in this case does not yield stems pointing in opposite directions.
In reply to Triplet Limitations by Sarastre
I don't see the limitation. Triplets just work like other notes. If you want to create chords in the tuplet use Shift + C, D, A.
If you want parallel tuplets in different voices, just use voice.
See file attached.
In reply to Triplet Limitations by Sarastre
BTW, Voices are not a "workaround" specific to triplets, they are how you enter multiple independent lines regardless of the specific rhythm. It's the same in Sibelius and Finale and all similar packages I know of. As for stem direction, they *do* point in opposite directions if you use voices 1 & 2. You can control the default direction for voices under Style->Edit General Style->Voices.
But as lasconic says, if you just want harmonzied triplets, you wouldn't normally want stems pointing in opposite directions - you'd want multiple notes on the same stem. Again, this has nothing to do with triplets; the procedure for adding more notes to an existing stem is the same for any rhythm: hit "shift" while adding the note.
In reply to BTW, Voices are not a by Marc Sabatella
The above responses tend to assume that I spoke of entering notes via keyboard. I prefer the mouse, and needn't regret a matter of personal style that is well incorporated into MuseScore. Also, please note that I spoke of triplets in certain terms precisely because I had to use unusual methods to achieve the "normal" result of unidirectional stems, if only once. That sense had little to do with intentionally creating harmonized triplets with dual stems: Voices' intent was already understood. Moreover, MuseScore is supposed to be an alternative to Finale and Sibelius.
Some of us are accustomed to software that differs from a "MuseScore/Finale/Sibelius" model. And while MuseScore does a very interesting job of playing back articulation and even arpeggios (tho not any of the ornaments tested so far), I find its tuplet function cumbersome. Yes, I must learn it, and have. But I can and should question such things along the way. That is how we learn.
In reply to Yes, BTW by Sarastre
Well, I mentioned the keyboard method of entry because it's most efficient. But the basic principles are the same whether using computer keyboard MIDI keyboard, or mouse. If you prefer to enter notes by clicking instead of using the keyboard, that's fine. Voices mean the same thing and work the same way whether talking about the keyboard or mouse.
So if you wish to enter two sets of triplets in different voices - meaning, you *want* the opposing stems and potential for independent rhythms - then simply click the "2" before entering the second set of triplets. And if you *don't* want the triplets in different voices, but instead want them to add notes to the first set, you do this the same you'd add notes to any chord, whether a triplet or not: by clicking directly where you want the note. If there is already a note there, clicking will simply add a new note to the stem, not replacing the old but adding to it. There's nothing more to it than that.
Anyhow, if you still have issues with triplets, it might help to explain them. MuseScore certainly has room for improvement, and I can think of a couple of specific things I'd like to see different about triplets, too. But what you've described so far, again, really has nothing to do with triplets.
BTW, as for MuseScore providing an alternative to Finale and Sibelius, that it does. But you mustn't thing of Vocies as some sort of awkward software-specific workaround for a something that would have been handled differently with pen and paper. On the contrary, the concept of multiple voices and how and why they are notated hasn't changed since Bach's day.
In reply to Well, I mentioned the by Marc Sabatella
One admires your ego-strength. Your *opinion*, however, is not fact. The question of mouse versus keyboard input is one of conceptual style, not unlike what Stravinsky called "the tyranny of the fingers". Besides: If my preference is truly "fine," you have no real reason to question its efficiency. I doubt that any time savings garnered by so-called "keyboard shortcuts" would amount to more than a few minutes, per composition. Were keyboard commands all that efficient, overall, the mouse would never have become an undeniable essential, and MuseScore would not have embraced such functionality.
Voices does *not* always function identically in both input methods. Of course it should; but for me it has not, and I know whereof I speak, having given other examples of MuseScore vagaries. Once again, I already knew what Voices is supposed to do and how, which neither your black-or-white reductionism nor your self-repetition enhances. I wrote clearly in terms of exceptions.
At the right time and in the proper thread, I will have more to say about the cumbersomeness of MuseScore's tuplet routine, etc. You have escalated this discussion into a dispute, however, and only a fool or a rabble-rouser would accommodate that intransigence.
"BTW, as for MuseScore providing an alternative to Finale and Sibelius, that
it does. But you mustn't thing [sic] of Vocies [SP] as some sort of awkward
software-specific workaround for a something that would have been handled
differently with pen and paper. On the contrary, the concept of multiple
voices and how and why they are notated hasn't changed since Bach's day."
1) Ah, but I never questioned the *concept* of polyphonic notation. I questioned its *application*, which has changed enormously since July 28, 1750. Since misapplied, your reasoning is no more convincing than an argument that copperplate written upon with wax pencil and etched with acid, then inked and printed, is the same as desktop publishing. Furthermore, I wrote nothing that reasonably justifies your conclusion about how I need to think. Some would describe your tone as "offensive". Musical intelligence (as in, Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences) is not perceived skill in manipulating MuseScore.
2) I happen to be a regular contributor to Mensa's Classical Music newsletter, specializing in the Baroque and Galant periods.
3) When Bach was already active, Italy -- then a hotbed of musical innovation -- was still printing and publishing musical scores using movable type that did not even provide for beaming. As a result, new printing processes (see Point 1)) and markets for them developed abroad (EG Amsterdam, Hamburg, London, Paris). How multiple voices were notated was still in flux during Bach's day, regardless of whether arguments can be made that it has remained substantially unchanged since his death. At best, your Bach observation discounts historical facts.
4) Neither, sad to say, does the spelling and diction quoted above reinforce the depth or extent of your assertions. While thanking you as a matter of civility, one wonders about your feeling for detail.
In reply to Counterpoints by Sarastre
I'm not exactly sure why you are being so combative. I'm simply trying to help you understand how to use the program. If it bothers you that I expressed the fact that I find keyboard entry more effective than mouse *for the specific task of entering notes* (eg,typing letter names as opposed to clicking on staff lines and spaces), and that this was the reason my initial instructions involved keyboard rather than mouse, I'm truly sorry.
Anyhow, once again, if you have specific examples of things that you feel don't work as they should or could, please share them. That's how the program improves - when users like you or I encounter things that seem awkward, that can give the developers ideas for how to improve it. Or, it might turn out that we are doing seems awkward because we haven't yet discovered how it actually works. Usually, here is a bit of both, and there should be no need for hostility.
So when you say that voices don't work the same between keyboard and mouse, some *specific* examples of differences would help Similarly, when you say that there is some sort of difference between the concept of how voices work in MuseScore versus in common practice, again, *specific* examples would help. And - coming back to the original subject of the thread - when you say triplets are clumsy, *specific* examples would help. Otherwise, there is no way the developers can make improvements. And *if* the problem turns out to be a simple misunderstanding on your part, it is the specific examples that would enable others to help you.
If you'd like to do this in a separate thread, feel free.
BTW, if you're interested in trading qualificiations, I have an MM in composition and teach universities courses in 16th century counterpoint, 18th century counterpoint, tonal harmony, and jazz theory. You don't have to assume I'm an idiot just because I am sometimes a careless typist when posting responses in user forums.
In reply to I'm not exactly sure why you by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for the response.
I am no more certain why you would deem me "combative". I was (and am) being merely dialectical, responding measure for measure to what came across to me as breezily dismissive assertions. My every word has been chosen with objectivity, and I have carefully avoided sententious representations of my view as fact or reality. One *eager* to fight/argue would have embraced the "my opinion as fact" fallacy, and/or chosen words like "blockheaded," "condescending," "smug," "glib," "dull," and so on (if not such crudities as "dumb," "out in left field," etc.) You might say that I was just trying to help you be helpful.
I would imagine that you are being honest with me, and hope that you are honest with yourself.
I also worry that you employ the academic's tactic of only seeming to miss the point -- a Socratic pose. I already clarified that most of my issues with MuseScore turn on erratic behavior, as proved to be the case with harmonized triplets and playback of more than four simultaneous parts/voices. There is no more need for hostility than there is for misrepresentation of dialectic as hostility, or than there is for victimage or Freudian projection. Yes, I could have formally problematized the one instance where MuseScore quit with a screen about "Unexpected C++ Error," which screen, as a matter of fact, asked that I contact the developer. But I did not have a chance to look for an Error Code, and I would rather not clutter the forum with issues that have yet to repeat. Practically every software application I have ever used behaves erratically (sooner or later); and if it bothers you that a new user did not immediately apply this knowledge (out of human hope for fresh air), please accept any apology due you. Those things said, I will add that I have no time for what Camille Paglia pointedly terms "the mincing minuets" of academe. I speak my mind.
Where you focus on "*specific* examples," I am concerned with the *how* and *why* of things -- not just the *what* of them. When I am ready to explain how and/or why I find tuplets cumbersome -- a common word used in its ordinary sense, I thought -- I will do so. I might even offer a simple suggestion that could, indeed, enhance the efficiency of notes entered via keyboard, once I am convinced that something which seems so obvious to a newcomer was not previously considered and rejected. I may have already committed the sin of alienating a contributor with "political capital," tho. Until more trust is built, I would rather spend the time elsewhere.
"BTW, if you're interested in trading qualificiations, I have an MM in
composition and teach universities courses in 16th century counterpoint, 18th
century counterpoint, tonal harmony, and jazz theory. You don't have to
assume I'm an idiot just because I am sometimes a careless typist when
posting responses in user forums."
This is a good example of how and why communications between us fail, Sir. In reality, I have been meaning to test a half-recollection that your recommendation of MuseScore popped up when I first googled "free music composition software". When I saw your first reply, your name felt familiar; but I was not immediately convinced that the impression was accurate enough to test. (There are too many other places where I might have encountered a similar name.) My point: The testimonial of a college-level music teacher who mentioned how easily he developed a keyboard method for entering notes could have been yours, and I never dismissed the possibility. I also considered that you might be a musically-inclined computer programmer.
To take my diplomatic-enough observation about lapsed self-editing as an assumption of grave stupidity seems an exaggeration, in either case. (It continues to amaze me, BTW, how many people with very high IQs resort to exaggeration as a counter-charge, when factual logic is so much easier for them than for most.)
I will aver that one reason I have not been quicker to test my Google theory is that your messages did not happen to represent my idea of a music professor's prose. Note that I wrote, "happen to" and "my idea". Why? It has been my experience that highly musical persons also have a knack for what Nietzsche called "the music beneath the words" -- euphony. Another, frankly, is that I found your early reference to "dozens of independent parts" curious. Good old Walter Piston observed that the "theoretical maximum" for contrapuntal voices is eight, claiming elsewhere that the ear tends increasingly to hear "any combination of tones" beyond four parts as chords. Padre Martini's famous (if insufficiently "didactic") treatise happens to include examples of no more than eight polyphonic parts; and while I once read of a "Colossal Baroque" canon by the elder Buononcini [father of Handel's rival] with 22 parts, I have neither seen nor heard it, and 22 falls short of "dozens". This also gave me reason to defer testing the theory.
In no case, however, is it fair to charge me with harshly devaluing you. If I truly thought you dull, I would have quickly ignored you, and would certainly not have tried to probe our exchanges.
In reply to Mirror Writing by Sarastre
All right, then! I'm sure we will run into each other often enough here, and some day can laugh about this exchange. I am somewhat curious about your reference to my writing "dozens of independent parts" - I can't recall ever writing anything like that. Maybe that was the mysterious other recommendation? But you are correct in guessing I am also a former software engineer.
...possibly in a way which a musically-inclined computer programmer (as I am) can understand?
If the handbook page about triplets is not enough to solve it (or to help to solve it), if the example given by lasconic in one of the first posts of this thread is not applicable, then I admit I do not understand where the problem is.
Is it about using the mouse rather than (or in addition to) the keyboard? Is it about unnecessarily complex procedures to achieve an intended result? (and which is this intended result?)
Some additional detail, even if limited to some practical contingency of non-general applicability, could make this whole thread of some utility for the MuseScore community in general.
Thanks,
M.
P.S.: I am not an English native speaker, so I may have made errors in grammar, syntax, spelling or style which, I hope, do not make the text incomprehensible and for which I apologize in advance.