proposal to split "Articulations & Ornaments" palette in two and add more articulations
I'd like to split "Artriculations & Ornaments" palette:
into "Articulations":
and "Ornaments":
The reason why as I mentioned here https://musescore.org/en/node/83486#comment-368921 was because I wanted to add several of the more uncommon articulations, such as "brassBend" (which actually to me is also a woodwind technique), doubleTongue, tripleTounge.
(actually another alternative I wanted to make while I'm here: thinking ahead and wondering if should go ahead and make a separate new palettes for each brassTechniques , windTechniques , stringTechniques , etc. so have the same organization as smufl, in which case might be able to leave most of "articulations & ornaments" as is and instead make new palettes for the extended techniques.)
Comments
I'd suggest keeping the same "Articulations & Ornaments" palette in in the Basic workspace, though.
In reply to I'd suggest keeping the same by Isaac Weiss
That might be a good idea. Another way might be to allow sub-pallets so that we get a logical hierarchy.
This proposal goes together with my proposal to do the same thing for the Articulation class internally holding these score elements.
Descriptions of it have been posted to the dev mailing list and to this forum ; neither attracted much attention, though...
In reply to This proposal goes together by Miwarre
From a developer's standpoint, I understand the desire for the separation in the implementation. From a user standpoint, I am less excited about the spearation in the palette. Maybe it's just me, but it seems it might take a little extra thought to decide if some marking I am looking for would be classified as an articulation or an ornament. But admittedly, when I actually look at the available markings, it does seem pretty clear in hindsight.
Fermatas, maybe, as the odd men out. They are neither articulation nor ornament. Maybe they fit better under breaths & pauses. But I am also leery of making change for the sake of change.
In reply to From a developer's by Marc Sabatella
well, if these won't be split, can I go ahead and add brassBend to "Articulations & Ornaments"?
I would support this if we can come up with clear definitions to distinguish between articulations and ornaments. I've seen a good informal definition given on these forums before:
Articulations - don't change the pitch of the note
Ornaments - may change the pitch and create multiple sub-notes at different pitches
It would be good to know if any sources back this up as the real definition.
By this definition fermatas would be articulations, though they might be better off with breaths and pauses as Marc suggested.
Some of the confusion created by the switch could be avoided by displaying the definition in a tooltip.
In reply to I would support this if we by shoogle
"Articulations - don't change the pitch of the note
Ornaments - may change the pitch and create multiple sub-notes at different pitches"
This is definitely one way to approach the question. Another could be to look at how they affect individual notes within larger (multi-note) chords:
which is the main reason why I propose to split the internal implementation. According to this and looking at 2.0.2 palette, I would say:
In reply to "Articulations - don't change by Miwarre
Following that fade in/out, volume swell, tremolo bar apply to a chord (assuming it means that bar on an electric guitar ), vibrato, ouvert, snap pizz and bend to a single note (or rather string)