Dive Bomb
See Wikipedia - it is represented with an exclamation mark.
Attached image taken from the explanation section of a song book (Credit: International Music Publications).
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Dive Bomb.png | 64.25 KB |
See Wikipedia - it is represented with an exclamation mark.
Attached image taken from the explanation section of a song book (Credit: International Music Publications).
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Dive Bomb.png | 64.25 KB |
Comments
Is this what you want? In MuseScore 1.1 - take line from Lines on palette. Adjust ends to get slope. Add text - exclamation mark, Arial 18-point.
Do you think we should have a 'Dive Bomb' function that can make this easier and quicker?
I'm also thinking about MusicXML.
Personally, no. If there are a lot of electric guitar players who use the feature frequently and who simply must export it to MusicXML format then maybe. I think you are in danger of trying to create a palette for every conceivable ornament.
I agree with underquark, it's kind of unnecessary, specially considering that it can be done by simply adding a textbox with a '!'.
Seems the ability to create custom palettes is kind of our ace in the hole here. It is indeed impossible - and perhaps unwise even if it were possible - to include every single marking that some random composer somewhere has invented to denote something. This is not a standard/common symbol at all, but 2.0 already makes it pretty easy to add this to your own personal repertoire via a palette.
Thanks guys. Although I'm clearly outvoted, I somewhat disagree.
I'm not sure we should exclude it from MusicXML either, regardless of how frequent it is used. I've seen it a few times in a couple of song books by the same publisher (examples attached).
When it appears on a score, it should try to look as identical to any others as possible (something that maybe difficult to do) - otherwise, it just looks as if you amateurishly drew it up (a practise I'm not keen on generally).
Plus, what if it crosses systems/pages? Also potential playback.
If it's in a professionally published book, surely that must merit its inclusion?
It seems to be a form of textless glissando.
To be clear, I am not saying I know for sure this symbol is not important enough to warrant inclusion. The existence of an established publisher that uses a symbol regularly is probably evidence enough. I was more addressing the general idea that we clearly cannot include every possible symbol anyone has ever used, but that we don't have to, either.