How do I input this?
Sorry if this is a noob question but I just downloaded this app and I have no clue how to input this into Musescore. The time signature is 6/8 yet the bar has more notes than I am allowed to input. Same thing when it switches to 9/8. How do make it so I can match the time signature and add the same amount of notes into Musescore? I am currently only interested in filling out the tablature part.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Screenshot from 2024-01-04 18-36-06.png | 1.11 MB |
Comments
The little 9 means nine notes in the space of 3. Look up how to enter tuplets in the manual. This isn't the greatest notation. Normally there would be a bracket setting off the nine notes.
In reply to The little 9 means nine… by bobjp
That was it! Your help is much appreciated!
In reply to That was it! Your help is… by karesama
Your welcome, and good luck.
In reply to The little 9 means nine… by bobjp
9 in the space of 6...
In reply to 9 in the space of 6... by Jojo-Schmitz
Potato/Kartoffel, but I think in this case you are right. Personally I would make it three triplets. Above 5 I get pretty confused.
In reply to Potato/Kartoffel by underquark
So the question was how to reproduce the above notation. What I did was to change the whole measure rest into two dotted 1/4 rests. Select the first rest and select nontuplet from the toolbar. This gives you nine in the place of three. Three triplets only gives you nine notes for the entire measure. You need 18.
In reply to So the question was how to… by bobjp
He meant per dotted quarter three 16th triplets (or a 16th triplet for each eight note).
>This gives you nine in the place of three.
No, it gives you nine in the place of six.
In reply to He meant per dotted quarter… by Malte Rogacki
OK I get what he meant.
![9v3.png]( "9v3.png")
But...
The original notation calls for nine 16th notes in the place of three 8th notes. Oh, I suppose you could say nine 16th notes in the place of six 16th notes. Or nine 16th notes in the place of one dotted quarter note. Which, as far as I know, is how to set up the original. At least that's how I did it.
We might be more used to reading triplets. But they may be harder to read in this case. Up to the individual, I guess.
In reply to OK I get what he meant. But… by bobjp
.
In reply to So, I know what the question… by underquark
Hence the "Personally...". I think it is reasonable to offer a personal opinion rather than "solve" a problem than the OP has partly already decided is the way to go. In this case, I feel that many more people are happy with triplets than in trying to work out whether there are 9 16ths in the space of 6 or 8 or quavers or what.
In reply to Hence the "Personally...". I… by underquark
Actually figuring out the nontuplet in this case was easy. It needed to span half a measure. I selected the whole measure rest and selected a dotted quarter note rest then hit CTLR 9. Personally, I seldom write tuplets. Until this thread, I didn't realize there is a tuplet tool in the tool bar.
In reply to The little 9 means nine… by bobjp
"Normally there would be a bracket setting off the nine notes."
Not true if all the 9 notes/rests are connected by a single beam. In the authoritative textbook about music notation ("Behind Bars" by Elaine Gould), pages 193-215 cover the rules for notating tuplets. The key passage is on p.200, and the topic is far from simple!
![Behind_Bars_p200_Tuplet_Brackets.png]( "Behind_Bars_p200_Tuplet_Brackets.png")
In reply to "Normally there would be a… by DanielR
Great. So now we are going to engage in unnecessary language nitpicking.
1. I said "normally". Does that mean "always"? No.
2. She says "not necessary". Does that mean "never"? No.
Did you notice that there are no brackets in the last example I posted from a test score on my MU4? I guess not.
Yes, rules are rules. They exist for a reason. But in this case there is nothing iron clad about either statement.
And it is always safer to err on the side of clarity.
In reply to Great. So now we are going… by bobjp
Fair enough. I still think that Elaine Gould's remarks and examples are interesting. ;-)
In reply to Fair enough. I still think… by DanielR
Interesting, sure. When I get a chance I hope to dig up the theory books I studied when I studied Music Education some 50 years ago. The thing is that there are plenty of well-known composers who have thrown the books out the window. And we scratch our heads, but have to move on.