Tremolo playback
I would like to see tremolo playback when one places a tremolo on a note. This would really be helpful to me, for I use many rolls in my music.
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
I would like to see tremolo playback when one places a tremolo on a note. This would really be helpful to me, for I use many rolls in my music.
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
If it's an instrument that has a tremolo patch in the soundfont you are using, you should be to enable this by using a staff text and setting the staff text properties to switch to that patch. It looks like automatic tremolo playback is already in 2.0, though.
I'm a beginning composer, and with marching band arrangements, tremolo playback is very important. It would be great if I saw this for diddles/rolls.
Thanks!
In reply to Can we please see this? by theycallmefizzy
You just need to load a soundfont that has these sounds. Do a search of this forum and you should find one posted a year or so ago.
In reply to You just need to load a by Marc Sabatella
I'm guessing they still wouldn't play if I uploaded it to Musescore.com, am I right? I'm asking for native support, in the program and online.
In reply to I'm guessing... by theycallmefizzy
Correct, they won't play on musescore.com, at least not until they add the feature they've mentioned possibly adding someday where you can upload an audio file.
Anyhow, yes, native support someday would be a nice enhancement, and there have been enough requests that I'm sure we'll see it at some point. Apparently 2.0 already has some types of tremolo but not others; may the others will be added. Anyhow, do keep in mind, MuseScore's primary function is *notation*, not playback. So playback features will always take something of a back seat in priority.
In reply to Correct, they won't play on by Marc Sabatella
I guess I can't say anything about what Musescore's goals should be, but I can say from my personal experience that beginning composers like me with limited resources would appreciate playback to be of higher concern. I'm using Musescore.com as my main outlet for my creations, and when talking about music, one of the important aspects of sharing is listening, and something is lost if you can't hear it right, in my opinion.
For example, I've made a matching arrangement and used marching percussion from a custom sound font and instrument list, so if you're using the Musescore.com player, you can't hear the percussion at all. The only workaround I've found is to record the audio on my computer, convert it to video, and upload it to YouTube so I can make a video score, and I know a lot of people aren't going to know how to do that.
Point is, there's a visual and an audial aspect to the music, and in my opinion, both aspects should be respected equally.
In reply to I guess I can't by theycallmefizzy
This is mostly moot as far as this particular issue goes, since as I said, it looks like it's going to be addressed in 2.0. Still, it is worth pointing out that while yes, the while point of music is to listen to it, the point of *notation* is to give to *human musicians* to play, so you can listen to it when played by them. The computer playback is mostly just a means of checking your work or maybe giving the musicians a very rough idea of what the pIece should sound like. If you are not dealing with human musicians but are just trying to produce something for a computer to play, that's more what sequencer programs are for. And while many sequencer programs do have a notation mode, they are usually as unsuitable for doing the job of a notation program as MuseScore is for doing the job of a sequencer. You have to decide which is more important - how the score looks, or how the computer playback sounds - and then choose the right tool for the job. Luckily, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing choice - you can start a score in notation software then export it as MIDI and import it into a sequencer to fine tune the playback. This allows each program to focus on what it does best and not dilute programming effort trying to duplicate what the other proram can do better.
So anyhow, again, yes, no one denies that playback has value. - I rely on it too. You don't have to convince anyone of that. I'm just trying to help give you a little perspective here, to understand why priorities are what they are. Yes, the point is to produce music to listen to - music for *human musicians to play*. And that is why notation features are always more important than playback.
In reply to This is mostly moot as far as by Marc Sabatella
I see what you mean now. Perhaps I might be too dependent on the audio when I'm making music. Thanks. :)
In reply to I guess I can't by theycallmefizzy
And to add to Marc's comments.
Surely part of the whole point of composing music is for others to perform it?
Computer performances, however well tweaked they are are always sterile IMO.
In fact I have felt that the amount of energy put into recorded music is far too great, given that you then have a "performance" of the music which never changes. I have, indeed, stopped listening to recorded music for the main part.
Music should be a living thing, actively being interpreted by real musicians, and with each performance subtly different from the last.
In reply to And to add to Marc's by ChurchOrganist
Something I should clarify. I do completely understand the desire for better computer playback, and to the extent possible, to have it happen within MuseScore. But I have a sense that what would be better still would be a separate program - one whose development would not necessarily be tied to MuseScore's - that could be used in conjunction with MuseScore to allow more precise control over playback.
I've mentioned this idea before, and it's never completely left my thoughts. I'm picturing something that could load a MuseScore file (or MusicXML file) and provide little or no editing control over the notation, but would provide a ton of control over the playback. Things like, how fast is the tremolo played, both as a gllobal default setting but also with the ability to tweak individual instances. Same with trills. Similarly, global settings for dynamics, articulations, etc, but the ability to *easily* override them, using an interface specifically tailored for that sort of thing (as opposed to the way you'd muck with playback of individual symbols in MuseScore via right click properties menus). Crescendo editors, tempo editors - all sorts of things designed to let you make your playback as realistic as your soundfont is capable of. The adjustments you make here would probably have to be saved into a new format, although i suppose it is possible that the MsueScore format could be extended to preserve the adjustments, so that you could take the resulting file and still edit the notation in MuseScore.
I said that sequencers are designed for this type of thing (as are Digital Audio Workstation programs, I guess), but in my limited experience, they tend to be too low level. They don't know what tremolo is; if you want to speed up a tremolo, you need to add more notes and muck with the timing rather than have a simple "tremolo speed" slider . Similarly, they don't know what a "staccato" is so there is no way to globally affect the playback of that marking - you would just muck with the durations of the individual notes. That's no fun. The type of program I envision would be more musically aware than a sequencer or DAW program and provide higher level controls for the most part (while hopefully also providing getting low level enough that you don't need yet another program for that).
It is my vision for something like that that informs my thoughts regarding how much I personally think makes sense to do within MuseScore. A basic playback of tremolo, sure. But fine grained control over that tremolo crosses the line into the territory of this other type of program that I would very much like to see.