Glissando off of note
I know that glissandos appear between two notes, and are sometimes known as "rips" in the music. However, I don't know if the glissandos into notes or off of single notes are known as something else. But for now, I'll just call them glissandos.
In MuseScore, I know that you can place a glissando between to notes. I also know that you can place a glissando into a note by creating two notes, placing the glissando on the first note, and then deleting the first note. However, I don't know how to place a glissando off of a note, which is used in many jazz compositions. Can someone please help me? Thanks!
~Kevin
Edit: I just realized after saving the file and reopening it that the glissando into the note (from a rest) was messed up, so if anyone could also tell me how to fix this issue, it would be much appreciated.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Untitled.mscz | 1.15 KB |
Comments
At the moment MuseScore only supports glissandos between two notes. The only workaround is to use the generic line from the line palette. However the generic line does not automatically attach to a note head so if your music moves around much during editing it may not be in exactly the right place.
Has this situation changed since 2009? I'm betting that somebody has implemented a way to do a "fall-off". But I don't see any obvious sign of it.
In reply to Has this situation changed by spinality
See https://musescore.org/en/handbook/bends
In reply to See by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks for the link. A bend, however, is really quite different from a glissando, particularly from a notation standpoint. I guess a hidden second note is the way to do it.
In reply to Thanks for the link. A bend, by spinality
Can you specify by joining a picture of the desired result on a published score what you mean exactly by "fall-off" ?
![glissando.jpg]( "glissando.jpg")
Is it to get a glissando to a final indeterminate/random note? So, enter two notes, enter a glissando and make invisible the second note. Then, uncheck the "Play" button in the Inspector of the second note (possibly also for the glissando, according to the desired result)
To receive:
Also, there is a serie of "fall" symbols in the glissandos palette. Maybe it's this you want to mean?
In reply to Thanks for the link. A bend, by spinality
Indeed, it's not clear quite what you are asking for. The bend symbols - the fall in particular - are in very common use by many publishers for what I *think* you are asking about. The distinction between glissando and bend in this case is entirely subjective and instrument-specific, in that in some genres and on some instruments, the bend might imply a continuous change in pitch (if supported by the instrument - try that on piano!) while the glissand clearly implie a more discrete chromatiuc change (if supported by the instrument - try that on trombone!). In other genres, the symbols are used entirely interchangeably, with the ontext making it clear which effect is intended.
In any case, if you do for whatever reason specifically need the wavy line, the glissando to a hidden note would be one way to do it. Or simply add the corresponding glyph form the Symbols palette.
In reply to Indeed, it's not clear quite by Marc Sabatella
Thanks much for the input. In this case I was trying to duplicate an existing set of charts that do use the wavy glissando line, often in a measure with no other notes. I've resorted to tieing this one to invisible notes in a different voice, which allows the visible rests to have the correct values. (I'm still having some challenges with spurious lines, stems, etc. appearing in the PDF where I intend them to be hidden, but this is probably pilot error as I use the inspector to mark features as hidden. I must be omitting certain glyphs. I'll figure it out.)
I realize there are other ways to handle this situation, but when trying to duplicate an existing score's appearance, representation choices are constrained.
At any rate, I keep being pleasantly surprised that old challenges from MS 1.x have been addressed in the current version, so this query was not saying "I'm having trouble with X" but rather "have I overlooked other ways to do X?"
Thanks again, I think I now see my options.
In reply to Thanks much for the input. In by spinality
For that given passage, the context makes it clear it is a definitely a fall being suggested as opposed to a glissando to the extent the distinction I mentioned actually applies, so really you are better off using the fall symbol. But if you really feel it important to get the wavy line even though it has no semantic importance here, adding it from the Symbols palette is going to be much easier than adding invisible notes.
Feel free to post the score with the issue of non-hidden symbols so we can see what might be going on there. BTW, instead of using the Inspector, you can simply press "V" to toggle the visibility setting.
In reply to For that given passage, the by Marc Sabatella
Thanks. Yes, you're obviously right about this being a fall, but I'm not going to tell the trumpeter/band leader that his chart is wrong. :)
I have sorted out my non-hidden glyphs issues, and they were all stupidity on my part. (The colors/contrasts that distinguish selected/non-selected hidden/visible features aren't so clear on the tablet screen.)
And thanks for the hint about "V", I missed that one. (I don't suppose there's a shortcut that hides both notehead and stem?)
In reply to Thanks. Yes, you're obviously by spinality
It's not really about right/wrong - like I said, the distinction is really mostly irrelevant. Just because he happened to choose the squiggly line don't assume it is actually worth your trouble to make the same choice though. It's rather unlikely he'd tell you that you didn't didn't do it right just bnecause your line isn't wavy - it's clkearly the same thing. He's more likely to be put off by the fact that MuseScore has no "handwritten" font for the music itself, but again, it's the same music either way of course,
To make all parts of a note invisible, simply select the whole thing - a range selection containing the note. Then when you press "V" it's all made invisible. Again, though, even if for some reason you want to continue using the wavy line, it's *much* easier to just add it from the Symbols palette and not worry about invisible notes etc.
In reply to It's not really about by Marc Sabatella
Thanks, and agreed. I've added these to my arp/gliss palette and all is well.
If I want versions of this symbol at different angles, not just 45 degrees, I presume I would need to create these as images? The 45 degree line is obviously not as versatile as a two-note gliss, but fulfills my need here.
BTW regarding invisible notes, I have to use these on this material anyway, because I need to use multi-measure rests for certain sections, and since this is achieved via a global setting rather than a ranged setting, I need to be careful not to have too many consecutive empty measures or they get squished into a multi-measure rest. (I only want to use them in the places where they appear in the original charts, which is in specific sections where another instrument is soloing, etc., but not in those places where there just happens to be a longish pause.)
I presume that it would be nontrivial to implement a multi-measure rest that can be applied to a range -- they seem like multi-measure repeat symbols, which also resist an easy solution.
Thanks again.
In reply to Thanks, and agreed. I've by spinality
Actually, its very simple to break multimeasure rests anywhere you like. First, they break automatically at all the proper places - rehearsal marks, tempo changes, key changes, double bars, etc. So it's normally very rare to need to force a multimeasure to break at oher places, and I'm not really understanding why you would deliberately want to *not* have them "where there just happens to be a longish pause" - that's exactly what they are for. But anyhow, if you want to do that for whatever reason, just go to Measure Properties and set the "Break multimeasure rest" option for any measures you want to not be included.
Again, I wouldn't assume the person who originally wrtote these parts out would want you to slavishly copy the original even to point of repeating the mistakes. Wouldn't it be better to create *improved* versions while you're at it?
Also, if you want wavy lines at arbitrary angles for whatever reason, you can add a trill line from the Lines palette and then edit it to be the length and angle you want (use the Inspector to enable the "Allow diagonal" option).
In reply to Actually, its very simple to by Marc Sabatella
Oh, gee, what a nitwit, how did I miss "break multimeasure rest"? I'm glad I asked.
(Is there a way to get "inside" the multimeasure rest in order to insert barlines and other breaking entities, or must I turn off multimeasure rests to display individual measures, insert the elements of interest, and then turn multimeasure rest back on? I thought that multimeasure would only apply in page view, but I see it also applies in continuous view.)
Thanks much for the trill line alternative for angled wavy lines, that is perfect.
Regarding the slavish devotion to existing formats, there are a few issues. First, I should say I was only joking about the severity of this particular bandleader regarding this particular score -- he's not unreasonable.
However, in this case, I'm replacing parts for just some performers who have been using the same material for some time. There's an advantage in having all the parts (including the ones I'm not changing) continue to look more or less the same -- with the same visual elements, measure layout, etc. == and also for the replaced parts to look more or less like what the performers are used to. If this is impractical then we go to Plan B, but if it can be done, then why not?
Moreover, when faced with something slightly oddball-but-not-unheard-of, like a one-ended gliss, I start by trying to figure out a way to duplicate it with MS. It may be more a matter of curiosity than a hard requirement; but if I *can* figure out how to do it, then later on I will be prepared if this *does* become a hard requirement.
Needless to say, MS lets me create most engraving elements, including odd ones. When I do find something I can't create or duplicate easily, before giving up and using a substitute, I first try to find a way. (This is partly from a life of working with typography and design tools, where it often *is* essential to produce a specific visual result, regardless of its goofiness. Moreover, this kind of app usage analysis can often helpfully reveal gaps, areas of inconsistency, or sources of confusion.)
(I will say that I've been embarrassed by how many MS issues I've raised recently that turned out to be poorly thought-out, under-researched, or just plain dumb. I don't seem to be quite as quick on the uptake as I used to be in these matters! Oh well. I appreciate your forbearance as you answer every one of my queries, even the silly ones.)
In reply to Oh, gee, what a nitwit, how by spinality
The reasoning for preserving the original notation makes more sense now, thanks for explaining.
To break multimeasure rests after already creating them, you do indeed need to press "M" to disable them, then press "M" again when you are done to turn them back on. BTW, note there is also an option in Style / General to control the minimum number of measures needed before multimeasure rests are used. It's possible that simply turning that up to 4 or whatever will go what you want. Keep in mind the main use case for these is not really replacing one or two individual parts; it's entering an entire score and then generating the parts. When you do this, the multimeasure rests are created automatically, and they are automatically broken in the proper places, so you normally would never need to mess with this.
Anyhow, glad to be of help!
In reply to The reasoning for preserving by Marc Sabatella
Oh, gee, another keyboard shortcut that I had overlooked: "M". That is much simpler.
I wish it were possible to display these shortcuts in context, rather than having to seek them on the manual page. There's no particular reason to assume that a given function has or does not have a shortcut. And of course being able to add/change keyboard mappings would be a big help. But a big job, no doubt.
In reply to Oh, gee, another keyboard by spinality
see https://musescore.org/en/handbook/preferences#shortcuts
In reply to see by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks. I thought I had seen this mapping page before (I had), but I had been overlooking it lately. And in fact I have actually used it to remap my own preferences, so this lapse even more silly. Need more coffee.
In reply to Oh, gee, another keyboard by spinality
Unfortunately for the specific idea of showing an M right there, when you're actually in the General Style window, pressing [M] doesn't do the same thing.
In reply to Unfortunately for the by Isaac Weiss
Yes, of course you're right, I hadn't thought that through. To be meaningful, the annotation would have to be larger (and thus less desirable).
This issue ("How else can I do X?") is a learning challenge on many systems: How do you help people learn the available shortcuts/gestures for their normal activities, other than waiting for them to discover them randomly? Most people won't read through long lists of shortcuts on the off-chance that one of them will prove useful.
As systems rely more on "figure it out as you go" learning, rather than focusing on reading manuals, we do need to come up with better ways to help hidden features reveal themselves. The Inspector is a good example of how to give unobtrusive control over a wide range of behavior.
I can almost envision a new palette that says "Here are all the actions you could take right now given the current hover position" listing all the keybindings, clicks, double-clicks, etc. that would do something. This would be an interesting tool, but what a big project to build it.
In reply to Oh, gee, another keyboard by spinality
As shown in the link above, you *can* customize shortcuts - see Edit / Preferences / Shortcuts.
"Most" shortcuts are for commands found in the menu, and the shortcuts do appear there. And those automatically update if you custimze the shortcuts. But there are indeed some that correspond to things not in menus, such as "V" and "M", and no doubt others I am not thinking of right now. Not sure how straightforward it is to document those correctly within the dialog boxes or elsewhere that they might appear - the code that does this automatically for menus won't apply. But yeah, it would be nice to have. Meanwhile, though, I think knowing about the list in Preferences and the possibility of customizing will help.
In reply to As shown in the link above, by Marc Sabatella
I see that, somehow, I have turned into one of the users I used to ridicule...for whom we invented the acronym RTFM. Looking over my recent comments, I just shake my head. Imagine forgetting that I've long been using custom keyboard bindings, and then complaining that I need to look them up in the handbook. Thanks for the input, all, and I will try to be less of a doofus in future.
In reply to I see that, somehow, I have by spinality
Turning into the type of person I used to ridicule - that's how I feel about the incredible number of typos that have somehow become common in my posts lately :-)