Creating layers on the same piano staff
Just wondering, how do you notate different layers in the same staff? Like having a minim over 4 quavers played by the same hand. Every time I try to insert a minim above a quaver, it replaces the quaver with the minim and the same other way around.
Is there any way of doing this?
Comments
See Voices
Yo! I totally have the same problem, did you find a way to solve it? Ugh, Musescore manages to make so many things that should be really easy RIDICULOUSLY complicated...not too bad for freeware though...
Oh wait...just saw Chen Lung's comment. Blurgh, that's still much more complicated then it should be *grumble* :P
In reply to Same here! by TheMika
What other notation software is simpler? I haven't come across anything that's easier to use. Voices, once you have realised that they exist and what they are for, are actually very easy. Have you any suggestions for a simpler way to implement this?
In reply to Same here! by TheMika
Indeed, representing this as separate voices is not only how all other notation software does it, it is also how all music notation *period* - software or otherwise - has done it for centuries. It's absolute the correct way it should be modeled in software - anything else would be non-standard. However, it is obviously the case it could be made more obvious in the documentation, to make it easier to find for people unfamiliar with this use of the term "voices".
In reply to Indeed, representing this as by Marc Sabatella
Anvil Studio does not use "voices" per se.
In reply to Anvil Studio does not use by astromath
OK, but Anvil Sutdio is a sequencer first and foremost, not a notation program. Not sure what it does instead - using multiple "tracks" instead of multiple "voices"? But if it isn't done with a separate track, then it needs a way of specifying rhythmically where the additional notes fall, and that's where being a sequencer instead of a notation program changes everything.
In reply to Indeed, representing this as by Marc Sabatella
The one thing that's kinda clunky about MuseScore's Voices is the requirement for a full set of rests in every voice. You then have to go through making most of them invisible.
It would be a major change, but it would be a lot easier if there were an underlying timeline that would allow you to put stuff in voices 2, 3, and 4 where you want without the rests. Of course, you'd be able to put in rests in those voices, too, but only the few that you need for clarity. I sometimes fill a measure with short rests in a particular voice, just to get that kind of timeline access.
-- J.S.
In reply to The one thing that's kinda by John Sprung
99% of the time where this happens, you *want* the rests - engraving rules normally call for each voice to be fully represented in any measure that has multiple voices. Otherwise, it is confusing to reader, as they have no idea where those notes are intended to fall rhythmically. Just because you the composer placed them using a timeline doesn't mean it will be apparent to anyone else reading the score. That's why the normal rules of music notation call for rests to to be used for that purpose.
In any case, sure, there would be other very non-standard ways of entering this type of notation, but why buck several hundred years of tradition here?
In reply to 99% of the time where this by Marc Sabatella
OK, so what do you do with a jumble of rests piled on top of each other, like this?
-- J.S.
In reply to OK, so what do you do with a by John Sprung
I just click on the rest I don't need and hit the delete key. The only rests that cannot be deleted this way are the voice 1 rests.
In reply to OK, so what do you do with a by John Sprung
You move them by hand, which is indeed a pain. 2.0 has automatic vertical repositioning of rests, which will be a huge help. But you definitely are supposed to keep the rests visible in most cases like this. Again, otherwise, the reader won't understand when the notes are supposed to be played.
This particular type of figure - a "pyramid", in arranger's parlance - can also be notated as a quarter note arpeggio with ties extending into nothingness after each note. Pyramids are kind of special cases; they are some of the very few situations where one ordinarily needs more than 2 voices in standard piano music.
In reply to You move them by hand, which by Marc Sabatella
Can MuseScore do ties extending into nothingness?
I tried moving the rests, there are limits on how far to the right they'll go.
-- J.S.
In reply to Can MuseScore do ties by John Sprung
never used to be able to let ties tie to nothing. There are a few places where that would be very useful, for example a tie into a 1st and 2nd ending. I either don't bother or I use a slur.
In reply to Musescore by xavierjazz
Yes, I agree. I use slurs for this too, or occasionally ties to invisible notes, but would prefer ties to nothing.
As for moving the rests, you shouldn't be moving them left and right, but rather, up and down. If they occur on the same beat, they should line up vertically.
In reply to Yes, I agree. I use slurs by Marc Sabatella
I use slurs also but in playback it gives two different notes
so is there away to tie a note to another note in second ending?
In reply to Tie's to second endings by Trucker
Perhaps as a workaround, start the endings a bar earlier? Of course you'd have two versions of the file, one that plays right, and one that prints right....
-- J.S.
In reply to Perhaps as a workaround, by John Sprung
does not seem to be part of the original intent of this thread, I have created a feature request: http://musescore.org/en/node/11640
Regards,
In reply to OK, so what do you do with a by John Sprung
The behaviour is improved in the trunk, but only accounts for 2 voices (not all four), so I created a report: #11623: Multi-voice rests don't space out properly
Thanks!
In reply to The one thing that's kinda by John Sprung
One other thing that occurs to me - for the cases where you do want invisible rests, something very simple that would help a lot is a keyboard shortcut for set invisible. Ideally, it should work while in Note Entry mode, and it should affect the most recently entered note, just as the up and down cursor keys do. Then entry of even the occasional incomplete second voice would be about as easy as one could imagine using any alternate non-standard method, and wouldn't require implementing or learning a whole new note entry method.
In reply to One other thing that occurs by Marc Sabatella
Even easier than that, what if you could enter second and higher voice notes wherever you want them to start, and have the computer figure out and fill in the leading invisible rests? All it would take is being able to snap the entry point to the start of an existing duration in another voice.
-- J.S.
In reply to Even easier than that, what by John Sprung
That's not easier, it's harder. How would you propose actually entering those notes? Just sort of click in the general place you want them to physically appear? And how would you propose MuseScore figure out exactly what beat you wanted them to sound on? You mention snapping to an existing place in another voice, but note that's not a particularly common situation. As often as not, the notes to be added would be in places where there isn't something already in another voice.
That's what I meant about having to invent and learn a whole new mode of note entry. The existing method works very well - faster to do directly from the keyboard with no clicking required, and it's completely unambiguous what beat each note should appear on as you enter it. And no guesswork is required.
In reply to That's not easier, it's by Marc Sabatella
You'd click in the exact place you want them to appear. As you move the cursor with the mouse, the potential new note would snap to the same start time as an existing note horizontally, and snap to a valid line or space vertically. Click when it's in the right place, and it goes from potential to permanent. That's how it works now within an individual voice. Go into note entry mode, and run the cursor over an existing score.
When higher voice (2,3,4) notes start at the same time as existing notes, the leading rests can be invisible. The stems line up, showing when they start. But as you pointed out in the pyramid example, if new voices start on their own, you need the leading rests to know when. You also need a duration start in the voice you're adding at the time the new voice starts. One way I've used to handle that is to fill the measure with short rests (such as eighths in 4/4), to create clickable entry points. Then you can go back and consolidate the leftover rests.
How about having those same entry points made available by an overlay of vertical lines in the new voice color -- every beat or half beat, or whatever you choose. The potential new note would snap to those available time line points horizontally. Click to enter a note, and the program would automatically fill in the leading rests. It's not guesswork, and you don't have to figure out the leading rests by hand.
Both systems can co-exist, just as mouse and keyboard entry do now. You'd be able to switch the overlay on and off, and enter things by keyboard just as always.
-- J.S.
In reply to You'd click in the exact by John Sprung
Yes, I'm sure a brand new system could be invented. I just don't see how it could possibly be worth the effort. It takes all of a few minutes to learn to use the current system. And I'm not at all convinced that the method you propose would actually end up being significantly more efficient than the current method would be if the were a shortcut to set invisible. Or perhaps better yet, a shortcut to enter a hidden rest directly, rather than enter a normal one then hide it.
I'm not saying I'd be opposed to seeing a new method that coexisted with the current method. But I'd be reluctant to give up whatever other feature might otherwise have been implemented with that same effort.
The real problem, as I see it, is one of discoverability and documentation. People who don't already know that voices is how this is done in most other programs and how it has historically been done for centuries don't know where to go to look for the feature. That's the harder problem to solve, and I don't see how introducing another method would actually help with that.
In reply to Yes, I'm sure a brand new by Marc Sabatella
Not so much a new system as a natural extension of the mouse interface. OK, I know you don't like the mouse.... Perhaps it's that you have so much experience, and you're so good at doing it your way, that you can't see it from a beginner's point of view. Maybe I'm dumber than I look, but it sure takes me more than a few minutes to do the math for hand-entering a lot of leading rests.
As for entering invisible rests directly, that should be easy. Perhaps since you have the number "0" key for rests, assign "Alt-0" for hidden rests.
Neither method solves the discovery and documentation problem, that's a different issue. I should go back and look at that "Quick Answers" thing. A re-write of the "Voices" entry as a problem/solution would make it easier to find.
-- J.S.
In reply to Not so much a new system as a by John Sprung
****************
18. Problem: How do I get notes of different durations to overlap in time?
Solution: Voices. To create chords in which notes have different durations, MuseScore uses a different Voice for each duration. By default, notes are entered in Voice #1 (blue). So, do the voice #1 notes first, then click on the number 2 with the green background just above the score to enter notes in voice #2, and so forth. This tends to clutter things up with rests in voices 2, 3, and 4. Rests after the last note in the measure in voices 2-4 can be deleted. The others you can click on, then right click for a menu, and make them invisible. If you need to see them again, on the very top row, click “Display”, then check “Show Invisible”. They come back as gray ghosts, but you can select and overwrite them.
****************
19. Problem: It won’t let you put notes where you want in Voices 2, 3, or 4.
Solution: It can be difficult to see what’s going on in multiple voices, and you can only put new notes at the start of an existing duration in the voice you’re using. Selecting the entire measure shows the note heads and rests in their voice colors, which helps. If it’s still too confusing, delete the troublesome voice for that measure, and start over with the Short Rests Trick (Topic #2) in that voice. That makes it easier to see places where you can put notes.
****************
20. Problem: Note heads of different Voices overwrite each other (like F&G on the same side of the stem).
Solution: Double click on one of the note heads and use the left or right arrow keys to move it. Click somewhere else when you're done. The stem, flag, beam, etc. will follow.
Click on the note, right click for a menu, then click note properties. Under chord properties, give it perhaps 0.5 additional leading space or trailing space, whatever looks good.
In reply to Not so much a new system as a by John Sprung
It's a new system in the most obvious sense - new code would be required to implement it, new handbook pages and tutorials would be required to document it. As opposed to the shortcut for entering hidden rests, which could be implemented In minutes, I'm guessing.
I have nothing against using the mouse. For some tasks it makes things faster and easier. Note entry just doesn't happen to be one of them. But I'm not advocating removing mouse entry because it is inefficient. And I'm not opposed to new note entry methods. I just question the wisdom when it's a lot of work to implememt and little or no more efficient to use.
You mention a lot of leading rests - well, as I keep saying, you're *supposed* to do that when a voice doesn't enter until the middle of a measure. Look at any published sheet music and you'll see those rests all over the place. I am being totally serious when I say the situations where hiding rests is the correct thing to do are quite uncommon. That's another reason I am not enthusiastic about the idea of a brand new note entry method - there would not be many instances where this would be appropriate to use. Can you, for example, show me any examples in any editions of Bach's WTC or Beethoven's sonatas where these leading rests have been omitted? By including an entry method that made it easier to create incorrect notation, I can't see how that helps beginners at all - quite the contrary.
Also, a rewrite of the Voices handbook entry would be nice, and your quick tips version looks like a good start, the real problem is that no one realizes that this is the entry they need to read. I think it's the Note Entry handbook page that needs the rewrite.
In reply to It's a new system in the most by Marc Sabatella
If you look at 100 Greatest Pop Songs, many of the songs have a second voice without leading rests in their measures. They also don't show the 2nd voice rests in the latter half of the measure for many of the songs.
In reply to If you look at 100 Greatest by astromath
I'm not saying it never happens, but it *is* uncommon, as it breaks the standard rules of notation. Trailing rests are indeed often skipped if the second half of the measure is empty.
Anyhow, again, it is perfectly possible to enter this notation, and it is done the way all other professional notation programs do it, which is in keeping with centuries of existing practice. It is not a particularly difficult method, and it would become even easier if a keyboard shortcut for invisible rests is added.
This *is* an open source project, so if someone wants to try their hand at designing and implementing an alternate method they think would be easier, and if it works and doesn't break anything, I doubt the developers would object to including it. I'm not trying to argue against the inclusion of a new method. I'm just trying to get people to understand that the current method really does work well if you let it.
In reply to I'm not saying it never by Marc Sabatella
Interesting. Most of the songbooks I have, many songs in them do not have preceding rests for the second voice. So, for me, it is a common occurence.
*shrug* It doesn't really matter. I just cope by putting rests in and then deleting them.
In reply to Interesting. Most of the by astromath
Indeed, Astromath -- that's where I'm finding second voices without rests. Marc is looking at Bach and Beethoven, I've been transcribing some 1930's stuff that's out of print, but still under copyright. (So, I really can't post any of it.) Having the computer figure out if it's the equivalent of five eighth rests, or thirteen sixteenths, or whatever still seems to me like a nice thing. Whether they need to be visible or not depends on the context of the other voices.
-- J.S.
In reply to Indeed, Astromath -- that's by John Sprung
You have a voice entering on the fourteenth sixteenth of a measure and think the reader is going to be able to figure out where that entrance is without seeing the leading rests? It's odd entrances like that where the rests are most important. The more obvious entrances, like right on beat 3, are the ones where maybe you can do without them.
But of course, you'd never enter thirteen sixteenth rests. If you're talking about a voice entering on the "e" of 4, that's a half rest, a quarter rest, and a sixteenth rest. Is that really so hard? You'd have had to figure that out if it was only one voice entering on that same place in the measure. Why does figuring it out in the case of two voices suddenly become so much more difficult? It's the exact same thing.
BTW, I'm not just talking about classical music. The basic principles of notation are common to all genres. I worked as an editor on a popular jazz fakebook series from a major publisher and their rules worked the same way. But as I believe I said, there was room for the editor to omit the rests in certain cases. So I'm not saying one should *never* omit them. Just that one should understand that they are normally supposed to be there, and it should have to be a conscious choice when to omit them.
As for the handbook update, I think the wording you have is fine, although I'd probably want it lower on the page, like right before the MIDI stuff. And with a picture showing the type of measure we're talking about. I was guessing it would make more sense to wait until 1.1 is finalized before making changes, as I don't think they were planning a new round of translations. But I think the online handbook can be updated at any time.
In reply to You have a voice entering on by Marc Sabatella
The case I'm remembering like that -- I'll have to look it up again -- the second voice enters simultaneously with the beginning of a duration in the first voice, so the leading rests can be invisible. The stems line up. If that were not the case, yes, you'd need to see the rests to know when the second voice comes in.
Yes, you can figure out the rests by hand. You can also balance your checkbook with pencil and paper. But we're using a computer, so my thinking is, make it do the drudge work. I haven't actually entered thirteen sixteenth rests, but I sometimes put in eight eighth rests, and copy and paste that setup all over the place, to create access points. If you're changing durations a lot, it can be easier to do a screen's worth of quarters, then the eighths, etc. For the higher voices, I then have to go back and consolidate the leftover eighth rests.
I think this would be good to have, but not the highest development priority. Probably the handling of lyrics is the worst thing in MuseScore 1.0.
My thinking on putting the handbook update right after the overview of the steps is that the reader who's in the wrong place gets re-directed to the right place without having to scan through a lot of material. The reader who's in the right place perhaps gets an important note in the back of the head....
-- J.S.
In reply to The case I'm remembering like by John Sprung
I still don't understand why entering leading rests doesn't seem to be a problem for music of one voice but suddenly becomes onerous when a second voice is added. To me, a second voice is no different from a first voice, and i just don't get why anyone would want to switch to a different method of note entry just because it's the second voice being entered rather than the first. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Again, I'm not opposed to seeing such a feature if some motivated programmer wanted to add it, but I personally wouldn't put it in the top 50 or so features that could really make a difference.
As for where to document Voices within Note Entry, you may well be right. My concern is that by putting it too high up, we distract people from basic note entry that is all most people will ever need most of the time. Usually in documentation you'd put the really important stuff toward the top, the less commonly needed stuff further down. And I'm thinking it might not be coincidence that this thread:
http://musescore.org/en/node/11705
happened right after that change. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if it turned out that your change led someone to discover voices who otherwise might not have. But until one has read a bit further in the Note Entry page, he probably doesn't really have the context to understand the distinction being made. So it could backfire, leading to more people trying to use multiple voices in situations where they aren't appropriate. I guess we'll see how common that becomes.
In reply to I still don't understand why by Marc Sabatella
Hi, Marc -- I see what you mean about that thread where the reader thought that all chords required multiple voices. I revised the text to try to head that problem off:
To add notes that overlap in time, but start or end at DIFFERENT times, see Voices. For chords, continue reading here.
Actually, it's not just for the additional voices that it would be good to have the ability to snap to a beat or fraction thereof, and let the computer do the rests. I use the "fill it with eighth rests" trick in voice one as well.
-- J.S.
In reply to Hi, Marc -- I see what you by John Sprung
Thanks for the clarification regarding voices. I'd say I now understand where you are coming from better. When I thimk of this as just an alternate input method that is totally unrelated to the issue of using multiple voices, it makes much more sense to me.
As for the handbook, it might take a few iterations before we hit on something that clarifies things perfectly. Hard to anticipate sometimes what will resonate with someone not already familiar with the issue. But it's definitely an improvememt!
In reply to The case I'm remembering like by John Sprung
I don't want to hijack this thread, but I am intrigued by your comment that "probably the handling of lyrics is the worst thing in MuseScore 1.0", as I have had no problems with lyrics, and I particularly like the way that entering lyrics automatically alters the note spacing to fit the lyrics. What would you want to be handled differently?
In reply to (OT) lyric handling by Jon Foote
Yes, we should probably start a thread on lyric issues. The two big ones are that any change to the music other than dragging pitch with the mouse blows away the lyrics for a give note, and that copy and paste doesn't work except for pasting from an external program.
-- J.S.
In reply to It's a new system in the most by Marc Sabatella
I added a line to the "Note Entry" handbook page:
"To add notes of different durations that play at the same time, see Voices."
Perhaps that's all that's really needed? We'll see....
-- J.S.
idk
In reply to idk by zaramiller
10 years later and still thw same answer, see https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/voices