Still having problems with hairpin dynamics - cresc and dim
I still don't fully "get" why the hairpin dynamics don't always work as I expect.
Also - is it OK to have one note with a dynamic mark as the end of one hairpin, and the start of the next?
An experimental file is attached.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2021-3-21 Daily Challenge.mscz | 13.48 KB |
Comments
In the first measures I deleted hairpin and dynamics and inserted again, I made invisible the dynamics by pressing V.
In reply to In the first measures I… by Shoichi
OK - I can hear that makes a difference in the first few bars. Would I have to do something similar to get the last four bars sorted? Also, what was actually wrong with the dynamics in the original? As I said - I still have problems getting this to work reliably - if at all?
Thanks for looking.
In reply to OK - I can hear that makes… by dave2020X
The dynamic on the note, the hairpin from the next to the penultimate note. On the last note the other dynamic
In reply to OK - I can hear that makes… by dave2020X
Nothing wrong with the dynamics. Just the placement of the hairpins. Delete the first hairpin. Select the note after the p. Shift+select the note before the f. Add the hairpin from the palette. Do the same for the other hairpins, selecting the notes between the dynamics.
In this case it's not necessary to have a note with a dynamic be the start and end of the hairpin.
In reply to Nothing wrong with the… by bobjp
Slowly getting there. I'm still having trouble with the diminuendo in the last three or so bars - after the forte in bar 6. Surely it shouldn't be this hit and miss!
The first half is shaped quite nicely now - better than I expected.
In reply to Slowly getting there. I'm… by dave2020X
Delete the hairpin in measures 6 and 7. Select the second note in measure 6. The A 16th note. Shift+select the last note in measure 7. The G 8th note. apply the hairpin. It's safer to not include the notes that have a dynamic applied to them.
In reply to Delete the hairpin in… by bobjp
It seems to require some careful adjustments. I noticed that the pp in the last bar wasn't sounding right. Eventually - by looking at the Inspector - I set the velocity of the pp to 30, and then tried a few more times. The attached shows the result. When I set the velocity to 0 the last note didn't sound at all!
It didn't seem over reliable or consistent, though. I tried different instruments in the Mixer to see if it was a synthesiser/virtual instrument issue, but it didn't appear to be. I think it now works more or less as I would expect, with a taper of loudness towards the end.
I wonder if there is something slightly buggy about this area - shouldn't be this tricksy, surely?
In reply to It seems to require some… by dave2020X
Last measure. Not sure why you have an expression pp under the treble line and a dynamic pp under the bass.
Personally, I don't mess with velocity, but that's just me. There simpler ways quite often.
The hairpin process really isn't that fiddley. If things don't line up or cross each other, than you need to try again. You'll get it.
In reply to Last measure. Not sure why… by bobjp
I tried just having the pp under the treble line. That didn't work. Then I put one under the bass. That didn't work either. It was only when I tinkered with the velocity that I got it to work. I wondered if it is because the last bar has a significantly longer note than the previous ones.
I wouldn't have messed with velocity if it had clearly worked without it - but it didn't.
In reply to I tried just having the pp… by dave2020X
The pp under the treble didn't work because it is redefined as an expression in the inspector, not a dynamic. That works in Sibelius but not in MuseScore. Just delete it and re-enter as a dynamic. For looks, delete the pp under the bass. Speaking of which, I'm not totally sure of the playability of the bass clef. Just depends on what you are after.
In reply to The pp under the treble didn… by bobjp
Thanks. I suppose that gives an explanation of why that didn't work, but unless users really know about this sort of thing it is going to be hard for many to find out why dynamics don't always work as expected. From what you are saying, the dynamics have to be checked in the Inspector to make sure that they are indeed "dynamics". i'm not at all sure how that pp was changed to expression, or even what that means in the context of text which normally does refer to musical dynamics.
I have had problems with dynamics not working before now, but at least I now have an extra clue about what I should look for if this hapens again.
Yes - I agree about the playability on a piano- particularly bars 3 and 4, but this has been through several variants, and the intention by this one was probably to split the bass part into separate instrumental or vocal parts. I'll put up a slighly more player friendly version in a while.
Thanks for solving this.
In reply to It seems to require some… by dave2020X
It only requires adjustments if you do it wrong in the first place :-). Everything should normnally work correctly out of the box, no adjsutment necessary, but possible in the places where you want to further customize behavior.
Anyhow, in the score you attached, I see two conflicting dynamics in that last bar. Which did you want to hear? Delete the other and all should be well. I can't tell if you are expressing surtprise that velocity 0 resulted in silence, but for the record, MIDi deines velocity "0" to mean, "note off" - it's not actualy a valid velocity value for a note normally.