can't tie 'grace notes' to main note
In the most recent Nightly, I've found that I'm unable to tie an acciaccatura to its main note - obviously when they are of the same pitch. This seems to be the case for all other 'grace notes' as well.
Is it a known issue, or does a bug report need to be filed?
Comments
#6535: Impossible to tie to a grace note
:)
In reply to #6535: Impossible to tie to a by chen lung
Thanks very much!
I want to bump this, as it's not clear to me whether this frustrating problem - inability to tie an acciaccatura to its main note - is actually an open issue or not.
Assuming it is, can the priority be upgraded from 'minor' to 'normal'? The usage in question is ubiquitous in piano music of the classical and romantic eras, and the need to re-create it when re-typesetting such scores is likewise significant.
(I am aware that one can work around the bug by using a slur instead and adjusting it accordingly.)
In reply to I want to bump this, as it's by [DELETED] 448831
Fwiw, it's more effective to bump in issue tracker than forum. Although bumping with no additional info isn't necessarily cool. Maybe provide some scans showing usage of this notation. Personally it wouldn't have occurred to me anyone would ever want to do this. Seeing examples would help clarify the need. Again, in the tracker, as that is simmering that actually gets, well, tracked.
In reply to Fwiw, it's more effective to by Marc Sabatella
Edit: withdrawn.
In reply to Edit: withdrawn. by [DELETED] 448831
Well, yes, it *does* matter if I or other developers can understand the use case for a feature. We cannot possibly implement every feature everyone ever asks for - we need a way to prioritize. And having some feel for how common the use case will be is as good a way to prioritize as any other. Yet we cannot always get a sense for how common a use case will be based on our own limited expewrience. We realize this, and that is why we ask for actual data from users to help us prioritize - because we know we cannot go by our own experience only.
I don't see why you would consider this "ridiculous". How else would you propose we prioritize feature requests? I am honestly compeltely confused by your reaction. My request was perfectly sensible. So thanks for the data, that will help us prioritize. Although as I said, it will do more good in the issue tracker.
In reply to Well, yes, it *does* matter by Marc Sabatella
I'll re-attach the Schumann score (a G. Schirmer publication) for its numerous examples, especially in the bass clef - and I'll reiterate that this is absolutely not an anomalous usage. Otherwise, I won't comment further.
In reply to I'll re-attach the Schumann by [DELETED] 448831
Thanks, but once more, it will do more good in the issue tracker.
In reply to I'll re-attach the Schumann by [DELETED] 448831
In this score however there is no visible difference between a tie and a slur as indeed in many printed scores--and all handwritten ones anyway. So why not just use the slur? In the smaller font the difference will be hard to spot. You always recognize a slur by the fact that it connects two notes of the same pitch, indeed if I am not mistaken Musescore does not allow you to tie between a flat and g sharp even though acoustically that will be a tie, not a slur.
The examples here could also be seen as arpeggios or broken chords: the lower note is hit first and then kept sounding while the upper note starts.
In reply to In this score however there by azumbrunn
For the record, the ability to add ties between grace notes and regular notes was added a few weeks ago, so this workaround is no longer needed.
In reply to I want to bump this, as it's by [DELETED] 448831
In case you missed it somehow (from Chen Lung's comment above), issue #6535: Impossible to tie to a grace note is open, and describes exactly what you want. You should bump that one instead.
Why would you want to tie an acciaccatura? Is it not the intention of the composer to have a little note played before the main note - quickly but separately from it? In this case you might indicate it with a slur and not a tie. Now, you CAN use a slur in MS 2.0 beta so I submit that you don't need a tie since a tie is wrong and would not sound correct.
In reply to Why would you want to tie an by underquark
That is astonishing - as if people in our present day know more than composers and editors of the golden age of engraving.
The fact is that this usage exists! Would you ask someone re-engraving early music notation why some or other convention is followed, or why they 'need' to do it? I don't think so.
I can provide more examples of this notation - though its ubiquity may be irrelevant to those who have decided that it is 'wrong' and 'would not sound correct'. Those claims are perplexing, actually, and they seem antithetical to any underlying assumption that MuseScore should produce - and, presumably, reproduce - beautiful notation.
I'm at a loss to understand any claim that anything someone doesn't happen to like or understand or be familiar with would be 'wrong', and I am guessing one would be quite unfamiliar with common practice period musical notation to imagine that a slur from an acciaccatura to a main note of identical pitch is viable - especially as a substitute for the tie that belongs there.
FWIW - given that MuseScore's explicit priority is written notation rather than playback - it is a slur in this context, not a tie, that would absolutely 'sound wrong' vis-a-vis the composer's intention.
These are all from Fauré's Ballade Op. 19:
In reply to That is astonishing - as if by [DELETED] 448831
Chopin Op. 23:
In reply to Chopin Op. 23: [inline:tied by [DELETED] 448831
I've posted a few more examples from Chopin at #6535: Impossible to tie to a grace note
In reply to I've posted a few more by [DELETED] 448831
Yes, clear now, thanks.
If you've never seen this before or thought about why it might make sense - for polyphonic instruments only, I guess - it does seems strange at first blush. No need to get upset that not everyone is already familiar with this and therefore some of us expressed surprise at first.
In reply to Yes, clear now, thanks. If by Marc Sabatella
Point taken, Marc, but gosh ... there's likewise no need to be reflexively dismissive about something one hasn't seen or doesn't understand. Such a reaction can be quite frustrating when (1) claims about the usage in question are not being fabricated, and (2) there would be no reason to overexaggerate its significance.
Anyone who's tempted to reject some sort of unfamiliar notation or other should perhaps ponder that a great many things could - and, in fact, routinely are! - notated in numerous ways. Lots of possibilities are, after all, in the nature of musical expression in the same way that language offers us vocabulary and syntax to choose from. This means that a question as to why why one would want to notate something in some specific way could be asked in countless situations for which we have functionalities in our 'toolkit' we've come to consider basic - like, for example, cross-staff notation, arpeggiation in general, baroque ornaments with nachschlags and vorschlags, etc. They all could potentially be written - or written out - in various distinct manners.
When we're talking about notation practices with historical precedent - as we are here - questions like, for instance, 'Why would anyone want to do it that way?' are always bound to be perplexing. As I said, such a question could be posed about virtually anything in the musical realm, and the answers aren't even relevant when one's biggest priority is to emulate a historic engraving and honor a great composer's explicit directive as accurately as possible.
In reply to Point taken, Marc, but gosh by [DELETED] 448831
In the issue thread , there is also some way they are played that is interresting.....
By the way, in the palette of Musescore 2.0 Beta, grace note are tied/slured to the right note. But when you insert it there aren't. Could it be possible that the grace note / appoggiatura, be tied/slured automatically when you insert it? (or them if there are several)
In reply to In the issue thread , there by Zynette
Ties and slurs are totally different things. The palette shows a slur, but maybe it shouldn't. Slurs are optional, you can add them yourself if you want them.
In reply to Chopin Op. 23: [inline:tied by [DELETED] 448831
I would play those examples exactly as if they were notated in an "arpeggio" form, so why could not a simple arpeggio symbol be used?
In reply to I would play those examples by Aldo
Obviously, it could be if one were composing. If one is re-typesetting a score in which another composer has notated it with acciaccaturas, then obviously acciaccaturas are necessary. I thought this would be abundantly clear by this point in the discussion, especially given that what is depicted is not strictly arpeggiation. It's something more precise than that.
Furthermore, sometimes the 'arpeggiation' is downward. Even assuming that one wished to 'translate' the notation conventions of 19th century music, a down-arpeggio symbol would be historically inaccurate in a classical piano score from the mid-1800s. It simply doesn't exist in that world.
In reply to Obviously, it could be if one by [DELETED] 448831
I get it, it's a formal issue, not a substantial one. Well, I can see that situations exist where formal issues matter. Philology, at times, can be an issue by itself! :)
In reply to I get it, it's a formal by Aldo
it is a matter of correct transcriptions, we're not going to argue with Chopin about them ;-)
In reply to it is a matter of correct by Jojo-Schmitz
I am glad if Chopin proved the most unassailable reference in this matter, but Schumann and Fauré were also preeminent composers of piano music in the 19th century (and, in the case of Fauré, into the 20th century).
While I do love philology for its own sake, I don't quite agree that this just 'a formal issue, not a substantial one' - as it goes to the possibility of notating precisely something that, in the alternative, would be approximate. Consider also that 'realized ornaments' are an an example of opting for precision rather than the generality conveyed of a symbol.
I believe that the tools at our disposal in musical notation are akin to the richness of vocabulary and various syntactic possibilities in language. There are times when precision and specificity (and even variation) may not be deemed important, but it's always nice to know they're available.
In reply to I am glad if Chopin proved by [DELETED] 448831
For the record, I agree, and am now completely convinced of the need for this feature. I implemented it yesterday and just finished testing. Here is the PR, which also fixes a couple of other grace note issues:
https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/1487
Hopefully this will be merged soon. Thanks for shedding light on this!
In reply to For the record, I agree, and by Marc Sabatella
I knew from the Issue Tracker that you were working on the fix, Marc, and that it might be implemented soon. Thank you!