Typing a natural sign in a chord symbol
I am creating lead sheets for a group of songs. I need to type in a chord symbol that includes a natural sign. I know that you can create a flat sign using the lower case "b" and a sharp sign using the pound sign (#). Is there a similar method for the natural sign? I tried "h", which is the natural sign when using figured bass, but it doesn't work.
Comments
As far as I know MiseScore has no provisioning for a natural in chord symbols. 'h' would also be a bad choice, as that is a valid note name in German settings
In reply to As far as I know MiseScore by Jojo-Schmitz
And actually, there have been requests to use "h" as an abbreviation for half-diminished which to me might make sense. Context would make it obvious which meaning is intended, just as for the letter "b" which can be a note name or a flat sign. So I'd be fine with that use of "h" if not for the conflict with figured bass - see #23784: support use of "h" to produce "half-diminished" sign in chord symbol. But since music is essentially *never* published with natural signs in chord symbols, I'm not crazy about making it easily to accidentally create one when something standard is intended.
That said, it should probably be *possible* create non-standard chord symbols like that. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't work to use a real natural sign from F2 palette (or keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+H). Seems someone might have asked about this once before but I don't see an open feature request. Feel free to file one (via the Issue tracker).
In reply to And actually, there have been by Marc Sabatella
Wouldn't "n" make more sense than "h"?
In reply to Wouldn't "n" make more sense by Isaac Weiss
I think "h" was chosen because it is the closest physical resemblance. "n" makes sense only in English (or whatever other random languages happen to have the word for natural begin with that letter).
In reply to I think "h" was chosen by Marc Sabatella
That makes sense. (Though "n" is nearly as close.)
In reply to That makes sense. (Though "n" by Isaac Weiss
And that's why I'd prefer 'n'
In reply to And that's why I'd prefer 'n' by Jojo-Schmitz
'n' is used to toggle note entry, perhaps modifying one of the two letters would be the solution. I think some places you can use ctrl-shift-h, just use that here.
In reply to 'n' is used to toggle note by mike320
oops, yes, n mignt not work then
In reply to 'n' is used to toggle note by mike320
Ctrl+Shift+h is indeed the shortcut for natural in other places in text. Ctrl+Shift+n enters the "n" dynamics symbol (for "niente", I guess). Probably best to just leave it that way for chord symbols but fix it to actually work - none of those special characters survive the parsing / formatting process.
In reply to Wouldn't "n" make more sense by Isaac Weiss
The font, "FiguredBassMH" uses an uppercase 5 (shift-5) for the natural sign. It might be good to check what other fonts, or programs like Sibelius use so that we move toward some kind of standard. Of course, it's likely that what other people use is already in use for something else in MuseScore. But I think it is worth checking.
In reply to The font, "FiguredBassMH" by Jake Sterling
Shift 5 gives a duration of 1/4 note or rest.
I even tried inserting a natural sign using F2 and it disappeared.
I've never seen a natural sign on chords, but I don't play an instrument where I see chords all the time. The chord always tells you what the key signature will be. There is no room to make a mistake when the chord progression goes F#min Dmaj Faug for example.
I would be very interested in what the circumstances would be where you need this. Please explain, I would appreciate it.
Regards,
In reply to I would be very interested in by xavierjazz
Thanks for all the feedback. To answer the question, "why do I need a natural sign in a chord symbol?" —I have to say that I don't really know. I am a mostly classical musician and I don't use lead sheets very much. I am copying over a group of songs and that is what is in the original. (Unfortunately, the composer is dead, so I can't ask him.)
After reading over all your comments, I think the answer is that he (composer) wrote in the natural sign to remind himself of the change that had to happen to change G- to Gmaj (the natural sign was in parentheses).
Since I am not too familiar with this kind of chord symbol and the original was all in the same handwriting, I just assumed it was standard notation that I wasn't familiar with.
In reply to Thanks for all the feedback. by Jake Sterling
Would be interesting to scan of this passage, to see if maybe something about the context gives us any other clues as to what was meant. Your hypoethesis seems logical, and in that case, unless you are contractually obligated to duplicate the non-standard / incorrect aspects of the original, it would be doing everyone a favor if you simply used standard nomenclature going forward.
In reply to Thanks for all the feedback. by Jake Sterling
I thought a little bit about this.
The natural symbol is never used alone. Used to indicate something.
Only in the "basso continuo / figured bass" can be used to indicate the condition of the third. (Sharp, flat, or natural)
If you go from Gm to G, it is displayed like this.
![natural_in_Chord_01.png]( "natural_in_Chord_01.png")
(Meaning that the "g" is root and third is natural.)
Maybe the composer wanted to put a reminder sign, next to the chord symbol.
![natural_in_Chord_02.png]( "natural_in_Chord_02.png")
just guessing...
In reply to I thought a little bit about by Ziya Mete Demircan
Yes, to your speculation on why the natural sign was used in a chord symbol—I believe it was simply a personal reminder pencilled in by the composer when he was performing the song. The sign got included when the sheets were photocopied and I didn't see that it was not part of the original.
Since I originally posted this question about natural signs in chord symbols, I have consulted with a few Pop/Jazz musicians and they all tell me that it must have been that my friend who wrote the songs just put the natural sign in as a reminder to himself.
Actually, I am amazed at the response this inquiry has generated! Reading over the responses, it's pretty clear that, because the natural sign is not part of chord symbols, and because the chord symbols need to change when the music is transposed, the natural sign would not be practical as part of chord symbols. Anyhow, in trying to solve this problem I have certainly filled in a big gap in my own education! Thanks for all the interest and feedback.
In reply to I would be very interested in by xavierjazz
Happy 2017 to everybody.
I add my vote for this feature.
I find such a feature useful when you need to point attention in a one-time changing chord.
I mean: you have always played G# but once you have to play a natural G. The possibility of adding the natural sign would be useful because it shows beyond any doubt that I want a natural G, it's not that I forgot to write "#"...
Thank you.
In reply to Happy 2017 to everybody. I by pl1957
If there is no visual example, how can we imagine that?
Is it such a thing?
G#m, Gm => G#m, G(♮)m
In reply to If there is no visual by Ziya Mete Demircan
You've guessed.
It's exactly what I (we?) want.
Writing a natural sign is possible only if you add a normal text (not a chord symbol), but in such way you lose the automatic transposition feature.
In reply to You've guessed. It's exactly by pl1957
If there is such a feature,
And we transpose the song,
I'm not sure the natural sign can be preserved. (As a chord symbol)
Maybe there is a way of protecting it, because it is in parenthesis; Maybe not...
At least it can be written. (If available)
In reply to If there is such a feature, by Ziya Mete Demircan
If a chord gets transposed there is a very good chance the natural sign would no longer be needed. MS will transpose chords. If you copy a chord to the trumpet and the natural is not preserved (which is likely), if this is implemented, you should be able to put it back in, just like with notes.
In reply to I would be very interested in by xavierjazz
I've arranged Jobim's Insensatez and want an F with a flat 5 in one bar of four with the progression | Dm6/F | E7 | Fb5 | Dm Ddim |. Now Fb5 is ambiguous. It is obvious to a human that Fb5 means the notes F A B, but to a computer it could be taken to mean E5 (Fb=E) and the notes E B. Certainly MuseScore sounds like its playing F A B, not E B, but I'd like to be able to write F natural sign b5 to eliminate the ambiguity. Using 3.6.0...... I can't figure out how to type a natural sign into a chord edit dialog. Typing Fnatural does result in the natural sun appearing. Typing Fnaturalb5 does not result in a natural sign appearing.
In reply to I've arranged Jobim's… by EliotMiranda
That's why you'd write F5b I guess. also just writing out the work 'natural', if need be with spaces around it, should help, but that won#t playback nor transpose
In reply to I've arranged Jobim's… by EliotMiranda
It's actually not ambiguous at all - Fb5 means an Fb "power chord" (root and fifth only. Doesn't matter if you're MuseScore or a human musician - that is the only correct interpretation. If you mean, an F triad with a flat fifth (F-A-B) write F(b5).
In reply to It's actually not ambiguous… by Marc Sabatella
I stumbled across this multi-year dialog about natural symbols in chords while entering into MuseScore a lead sheet for George Gershwin's 1929 song "Soon". If anyone's still looking for answer to the question "Why do you need a natural symbol in a chord?", this might provide a real-world example. The key is Eb and the chord progression at the turnaround to go back and repeat the 2nd chorus is Eb B7 Bb7. The B7 happens to appear as the first chord in a measure, so the natural sign seems to serve the same function as the "courtesy" accidental that is optionally included when a note that looks like the same pitch as a note in a previous measure is actually different. (When sight-reading, I am personally VERY grateful for such alerts [g].) In this case, even if the B7 appeared in the same measure, it probably wasn't a bad idea to wave a flag to indicate "this ain't the standard 5th chord you're expecting".
Unfortunately, when you insert the natural sign between the B and the 7 by typing "natural", it appears correctly on the printed page (just like the chord in the 1929 sheet music) but on playback, MuseScore doesn't play any chord, just a plain B natural.
This is a real rarity. In the past few years, I've entered over 430 popular and jazz songs into MuseScore, and this is the first time I've encountered this kind of oddity. So it doesn't seem worth any effort to try to incorporate playable courtesy accidentals in chords. MuseScore DOES correctly transpose the accidental symbol to a new key, which works perfectly for my purposes. Thanks again for surprising me with another nice quirky little detail that MuseScore can handle!!
In reply to I stumbled across this multi… by MandyWh
If the lead sheet was published in 1929, keep in mind, it was written for 1929 audiences, who had different experiences than people today. Most people today have never seen a natural sign in a chord symbol even once in their entire lives, and including one would just confuse them. That particular chord progression (I bVI7 V7) - is incredibly common, and would never normally notated with naturals by any publisher today. So unless there is a special need to reproduce an obsolete notation for historical purposes as opposed to aid readability, I definitely recommend not doing this - it's going to have the opposite effect, making it more confusing to most people. They'll wonder what the natural sign is doing there, because they've literally never seen on in a chord symbol in their lives. They'll likely think it applies somehow to the 7, like b9 or #11 or whatever, but then scratch their heads wondering what it's actually saying.
That said, if you do need to reproduce it for historical reasons, you can always turn off playback of this chord symbol, then add a second only notated normally but make it invisible.
In reply to If the lead sheet was… by Marc Sabatella
I love these conversations! It was I who originally started this chain, and people have been responding for 6 years! I can't even remember why I originally wanted to put a natural sign in a chord symbol, but I suspect it was because, being pretty unfamiliar with the use of chord symbols, I was confusing them figured bass practice. Anyway, I love MuseScore and the MuseScore community.
In reply to If the lead sheet was… by Marc Sabatella
Instead of using Eb B7 Bb7...
for the I - bVI7 - V7 chord progression in Eb, wouldn't Eb - Cb7 - Bb7 be the unequivocal choice?
In reply to Instead of using Eb B7 Bb7… by Jm6stringer
Excellent question! This is unquestionably the "correct" notation. But here, it's pretty universal to give in to the "but no one likes Cb" bias and just notate the B7. It's tricky, because often the melodies are such that they make more sense to notates as Cb7. The voice leading over the bVI7-V7 would typically be going Cb-Bb, Eb-D, Gb-F, and Bbb-Ab. But no one likes that Bbb either. So in the end, writing these lines as B-Bb, D#-D, F#-F is pretty common. Or some sort of ad hoc mixture. As a pianist, I greatly prefer the notes to match the chord symbol, so if the chord symbol if B7, I want to see the sharps. But when writing ensemble parts where the players aren't seeing the chord symbols, it's more fine to write whichever line best clarifies the motion. You end up telling lots of enharmonic lies in the horn parts of a big band in passages like this.
In reply to Instead of using Eb B7 Bb7… by Jm6stringer
Absolutely right.
I was about to write almost the same thing if I hadn't seen your post here :)
To explain in C major: Same thing as "Ab7 G7 C".
And this is similar to "Dm7b5 G7 C". // "b9" can be used on the G7 according to the melody.
In reply to Absolutely right. I was… by Ziya Mete Demircan
One other interesting wrinkle worth mentioning: a "classical" analysis of this exact same chord progression wouldn't call that Ab7 at all; it would be an "augmented sixth chord", spelled Ab-C-Eb-F#. Because from a voice leading perspective, the F# is likely to resolve up to G, not down to F; and the chord derives from an F minor chord. Whereas the jazz derivation of this same chord would emphasize the relationship to D7 (tritone substitution), which also leads to spelling with F#.
In the original key, this would mean we might well have a spelling Cb-Eb-Gb-A - that is, it wouldn't have the Bbb.
None of which is necessarily relevant to the question of putting natural signs in chord symbols, but it's all potentially interesting / worth discussing!
In reply to If the lead sheet was… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for your very helpful explanation. Since I'm just trying to produce lead sheets to be played by real lived human beans in the 21st century, I will definitely remove the natural signs from the chords as you suggest. My input is a collection of piano-vocal scores of Gershwin songs written in the 1920's and 30's. The collection was published in the 1960's, and the scores themselves SEEM to be just copies of the originals. But who knows for sure when (or why or by whom) the chord symbols might have been "edited".
I just randomly tried to get the natural sign into the chord symbol - and it realy is possible! Just type the word "natural" (without the quotation marks of course) after your chord and voilà - it appears :D
In reply to I just randomly tried to get… by spelunker
Funny, "sharp" and "flat" does not work though
In reply to I just randomly tried to get… by spelunker
That's crazy - I don't remember writing code to do that! I think maybe it works because of how things are structured within the chord description file, but actually I'm still scratching my head over that!
Note this won't really work the way you want in general - it won't be understood with respect to transposition, for instance. So if you write Bnatural in concert pitch and then transpose for clarinet, you'll get C#natural. The natural sign will be treated not as part of the root but as part of the extension.
In reply to That's crazy - I don't… by Marc Sabatella
I see the change here (with this commit: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/1483/files) on November 19, 2014
![G.jpg]( "G.jpg")
![G1.jpg]( "G1.jpg")
With 8c17965, I get:
With 912bc5e
In reply to I see the change here (with… by cadiz1
Indeed, seems to be an accidental (sorry!) side effect of how I restructured things in the chord description file. Well, anyhow, for now it works to whatever extent it does, but I wouldn't recommend relying on this as it isn't actually being parsed or handled properly.
In reply to I see the change here (with… by cadiz1
This still works, sort of, buy only if the natural is at the end, not for e.g.
BnaturalmIn reply to I just randomly tried to get… by spelunker
Though this feature does not work, at least it didn't work for me when the chord has additional indications, sevenths, sharp 11, etc.
I tried with Gnatural, and it worked just fine, but when I added the ...7#11 I needed it didn't work anymore, just came out as Gnatural7#11. It'd be nice if that were added.
In reply to Though this feature does not… by JuanGomezLeon
"Gnatural7#11" works for me
In reply to Though this feature does not… by JuanGomezLeon
Wors for me too, even Gnatural7#11. Be sure you have the latest version of MuseScore (3.4.2), older versions did not necessarily support this.
That said I strongly urge people not to do. it's just going to cause confusion. People used to seeing standard usage of chord symbols are going to look at that and say, "what the heck is a natural seven chord? I know regular dominant sevenths, I know major sevenths, I know minor sevenths, I even know diminished and half-diminished sevenths, but I've never heard of a natural seventh". They just won't get that you mean, a regular seventh chord built on G natural., because standard usage simply does not use the natural sign that way.
In reply to Wors for me too, even… by Marc Sabatella
Okay once again I'm making unvalid comments for not having the latest version haha. Thank you two for the feedback. About the use of this feature, I understand what you mean with G(♮)7#11 being something you would never see cenvetionally and it will certainly make the performer look two times to check what the hell I mean.
Though as I already do not consider my sheet to be for first-time-sight-reading due to the complexity of the song (Some Jazz Fusion with bunch of meter changes), I think once they read G(♮)7#11 within the context of the key (F sharp minor) they'll understand what I meant and why I wrote that out that way. (Or at least I sure hope they do!). Anyway I completely understand your point, but I think just this once I'm going to test out the feature for the sake of clarity and see if I should just leave it normal the next time.
Thank you.
I hate to bring up an old topic, but it still seems like a relevant issue today. Some have asked why you would ever need to add a natural sign in a chord symbol, and that's a sensible question to ask. In my case, I have two measures of static harmony (BMaj7) that I "spiced" up by altering the fifth every two beats, so it actually looks like:
|BMaj7#5 BMaj7|BMaj7b5 BMaj7|
But it would be far easier to read if one could just put:
|BMaj7#5 N5|b5 N5|. ("N" of course is the natural sign).
If this has been added in 3.2.3 I apologize for not figuring it out sooner, but I don't think it has.
In reply to I hate to bring up an old… by Jazzman99
It hasn't, but since those aren't true chord symbols anyhow, I'd recommend just adding them a staff text (Ctrl+Shift+h to enter the natural).
In reply to It hasn't, but since those… by Marc Sabatella
Oh, you know, I hadn't thought of that! It worked great! Thank you - and thanks for such a speedy reply!!!
In reply to Oh, you know, I hadn't… by Jazzman99
And if you need them ctrl+shift+# for a sharp and ctrl+shift+b for a flat.