Arpeggiate/roll all chords?
I've been putting a number of pieces for "plectrum guitar" into MuseScore and wonder if there's a convention to indicate that all chords (at least those of 3 or more notes) are to be rolled (arpeggiated), preferably one that is respected by the playback engine? Hearing it pump out 4-6 note chords is somehow worse than the mechanical nature of midi, or the hardly realistic synthetic guitar sound.
Thanks!
Comments
You can set arpeggio 'Stretch' in the Inspector.
Example:
Strums_stretch_values.mscz
EDIT: Also see:
https://musescore.org/en/node/323518#comment-1090870
In reply to You can set arpeggio … by Jm6stringer
Thanks, that answers the question for each single chord and for the midi playback. There are no score-wide parameters to control playback of N-and-more chords without having to burden the score with lots of arpeggio symbols? I suppose I could hide them for printing but that still leaves the burden of entering them one by one.
I'm not after a very finely tuned control of the way chords are played in midi playback, which I only use as a reference to help me get the tune into my head (and possibly to practice along with).
For printing I'd be perfectly happy with a common convention to denote "chords are to be rolled/strummed". Is there such a convention for guitar scores? Even something like using a single arpeggio symbol labelled "and so forth"?
BTW, I take it there is no actual difference between a curly and a straight arpeggio symbol other than its appearance?
PS: the piece in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOjrNfTHc0
In reply to Thanks, that answers the… by rjvbertin
there is no actual difference between a curly and a straight arpeggio symbol other than its appearance? Indeed there isn't. But if you change the palybacl to a portamento style a wiggly arpeggion would lookk wrong.
Maybe we should make the straight ones to be portamento style by default
Edit: and once again I'm confusing arpeggios for glissandos :-(
(I'd use the straight arpeggios for strumming, else the wiggly ones)
In reply to Thanks, that answers the… by rjvbertin
You wrote:
...if there's a convention to indicate that all chords... are to be rolled (arpeggiated), preferably one that is respected by the playback engine?
and:
I'm not after a very finely tuned control of the way chords are played in midi playback...
Those statements seem contradictory.
Anyway...
If you want the playback engine to respect "rolling" the chords, use the arpeggio and modify its 'Stretch' in the Inspector. When notating, you can select the chords and then add the arpeggios instead of entering "one by one".
Printing the score...
In plectrum style guitar playing at slow to moderate tempo, notes automatically sound "arpeggiated" -- i.e., the pick glides across the strings (as opposed to sounding all strings simultaneously).
Compare to classical or "finger" style playing where strings can be plucked by different fingers and made to sound all at once. Watching that youtube piece, and as played with a pick, there is no need to specifically notate arpeggios. At that tempo, it happens "automatically", when played by a competent human guitarist.
You wrote:
BTW, I take it there is no actual difference between a curly and a straight arpeggio symbol other than its appearance?
MuseScore payback treats them the same.
For guitar music notation...
The wavy line can be used to emphasize the arpeggio, as in a final chord (played with greater note separation):
Strum.mscz
In reply to You wrote: ...if there's a… by Jm6stringer
I don't see how my statements are contradictory. I'd be content with just a way to say "roll all chords of more than N notes", not necessarily even with a need to specify how and certainly not on a note-by-note basis.
Even when adding an arpeggio in batch mode (after having succeeded in selecting all chords without messing up...) you'd still end up with all those arrows in the score, so I'd have to be able to set the stretch and visibility for all those indicators in 1 (or 2) batch operations.
You're right that printing "plectrum guitar" above the score should suffice for anyone who knows what that is, even if they don't intend to use a pick (like me). I'm asking about this because the issue came up in class - I'm taking the liberty to share the score with my teacher, who's a classical guitarist who continued to have the reflex of blocking all chords even after I explained the intention. So I thought I'd add the instruction in classical idiom; her own suggestion was to note a single arpeggio with "and so for all other chords" (I seem to recall there's a latin or italian term for that, but can't remember it).
In reply to I don't see how my… by rjvbertin
I'd be content with just a way to say "roll all chords of more than N notes"
Okay, so you can add a written instruction into your score. MuseScore can't read nor understand it, but humans will.
Although if you want to enhance MuseScore's playback to not pump out 4 - 6 note chords as blocks of sound, your option is to tweak the arpeggio. (Incidentally, the 'Stretch' parameter is a fairly new addition. Guitar strums were formerly more complicated to make sound correctly.)
Another example:
Rasgueado.mscz
You wrote
I seem to recall there's a latin or italian term for that...
The word simile comes to my mind, whereby a musical directive (for example, down/up picking) is expressly notated once with the intent to be applied to the following passages.