create tuplet that rings
This is probably such an obvious question that there isn't even much discussion of it. Thanks for your patience. I'm writing out a piece of guitar music in which some notes ring longer than others. Adding a second voice works most of the time, but I am so far stymied when I need to write a triplet containing notes that ring longer than the total duration of the triplet.
I have seen the suggestion to create a blank triplet in Voice 1 and then place Voice 2 notes of longer duration at those rests. I can't seem to do that. MuseScore will not let me place a Voice 2 note that is longer than the triplet allows. I've tried it in Note Input mode of Voice 2, and I have tried creating the note in Voice 1 and then converting it to Voice 2.
Writing it all in one voice with lots of tied notes makes the score hard to play and isn't really accurate either.
Thanks in advance.
Comments
To allow the note to "ring" you need to make the triplet in voice 2 longer than the triplet in voice 1. To make a triplet, the note must be able to be made with a single note, with no ties. In my attached example I used a dotted 1/4 note (for demonstration purposes only) in voice 2 for the "ring" and a 1/4 note in voice 1 for what is written. I could have used 3 1/8th notes rather than a tuplet in this case. Which leads to another point, it may be better to not use a tuplet in the "ring" portion so it will sound correct. Also, silence the voice 1 as in the example.
I showed the final product, then voice 1 notes then voice 2 notes so you can see how I do it. As noted, make sure view invisible is turned on so you can see the hidden notes in voice 2.
One note, if you are using a triplet in the last beat, you will not be able to use a triplet to let it ring, you will have to use something else (such as dotted or tied notes) to make it sound right.
In reply to To allow the note to "ring" by mike320
I decided to reply to myself rather than change my post. The problem with my example is that the 2nd and 3rd notes start too late and that's not what you want. You want them played at the same time but to last longer. I have revised the sample. If you want more than 4 notes in a tuplet, you are going to have to add invisible staffs or alternate between voices to get the notes on the right beat. I have made the notes ring twice as long as in voice 1, you can change that by changing the duration of the notes in the other voices. I'm sure you are using arpeggios, but I used consecutive notes mostly on the same string, which is impossible.
In reply to I decided to reply to myself by mike320
Thanks especially to Mike320! The examples make it possible for me to see where you're going. By the way, pretty cute that you silence some notes -- I don't find how to do that in the manuals.
The problem comes when I want notes in the triplet to ring *beyond* the time boundary of the tuplet, as I have been attempting. I guess I can overlay sextuplets of half-note duration or 12-tuplets of ... I will see what it looks like when I try that.
If nothing else, I can go back to entering invisible notes and making ties to them. Comment: this doesn't seem like an insurmountable technical problem.
In reply to Thanks especially to Mike320! by rickexner
My initial goal was to allow you to do what you want. To silence the notes use the Selection Filter (F6) and limit it to the voice you want to silence by unchecking all other voices in the selection range (or all but the voice you want to silence if in doubt). Open the Inspector (F8) and scroll down to the button that says notes. Then scroll down until you see the play square checked and uncheck it. This will silence the extra notes.
Now, as to why you want to do this, I don't know because guitar music usually rings unless the musician is told otherwise or another note is played on the same string.
If you are working with triplets on a 1/4 note, to double the duration just make it a triplet on a 1/2 note. It will show 1/4 rests, but you can change your note duration to 1/8th notes or even dotted 1/4 notes if you like, as long as it is still the equivalent notes as 3 beats in 4/4 time and so on....
In reply to Thanks especially to Mike320! by rickexner
What I don't understand is when you say "I want notes in the triplet to ring *beyond* the time boundary of the tuplet". That should *already* be the case. A guitar string vibrates as long as it feels like vibrating, whether you put some special marking in your score or not. So you shouldn't need to tell a musician to do anything special to get him to let the strings vibrate for as long as they naturally do - that's the default already. Only if you *don't* want the strings to continue to vibrate should you need to notate anything, normally. That's what I think mike320 and I are both trying to say here.
I suppose the "obvious" part of this is that on gitar, the notated length of a note isn't all that relevant most of the time. All notes rings for as long as the string continues to vibrate - until you play another note on the same string. So in many cases, it isn't all that relevant to try to notate different durations. In other cases, one commonly just uses the notation "l.v." to confirm you want the performer to let the strings vibrate rather than possibly stopping them, if something about the context makes you think he otherwise might try to stop them. In other cases, you might want to use the "extended ties" technique - simply enter the individual notes normally, then the chord you want them tied to, and enter the ties.
So the right way to do things depends on the context and your preference. if you explain more about the passage you are trying to notate and why you think a special notation would be needed, we could advise better.
In reply to I suppose the "obvious" part by Marc Sabatella
Thank you again for the help. I don't know what your instrument(s) are, and I know decay is more-or-less built into the architecture, but there are good reasons to be able to give direction to the musician in this regard. Strings do not get to ring because we are not the most dexterous of musicians or just because of how the music plays in our heads. We have ways, intentional and otherwise, to stop a string from vibrating, believe me.
So the (contemporary) composer, who has some idea in his/her head of how the piece goes, tries to provide some guidance through the score. Most musicians actually appreciate these hints, at least as a starting point.
I don't think the question would come up if this were a piece for, say, piano. But the technical problem is the same.
In reply to Thank you again for the help. by rickexner
Putting in hidden voices to make it sound right for playback makes sense to me, but they do nothing to tell the musician to play an note any differently since by definition he can't see them. If the only reason you want to do this is to make it sound better I understand, I use such techniques with various music notations that are not played properly by MS. If you expect the musician to do something out of the ordinary then this is not the way to do it. Of course, you haven't asked how to notate it, just to make MS play it.
In reply to I suppose the "obvious" part by Marc Sabatella
This same problem also applies to the piano: If a pianist reads notes he lifts the fingers off the keys at then of each note, stopping it (assuming the foot is off the pedal of course). If you want him to keep the finger down you need to be able to notate that. You would to it by tying a note that extends to the time required.
So the question is: How do you notate it if the original line has to be a triplet or other tuplet?
In reply to This same problem also by azumbrunn
The standard method looks like this:
This is supported direction in MuseScore. Just add the notes exactly as you see them, then add ties to the first three normally (eg, select all three, press "+").
In reply to The standard method looks by Marc Sabatella
if you want to lazy notation (warning: not strict, not correct!) some examples below:
first line: lazy notation.
second line: strict, correct notation.
In reply to if you want to lazy notation by Ziya Mete Demircan
You are all completely correct, and I know it. In a not-very-artful way I've just been trying to indicate the necessity of sustaining notes without cluttering up the score, and the musician's mind, with extraneous marks. Maybe the rejoinder is that real musicians are entirely accustomed to sequential ties. As for example in measures 3 and 4 of the sample attached. The first 4 measures represent an attempt, with notes that are tied-to made invisible, similar to their counterparts in the tablature. I guess this is a convention in tablature, but it's probably considered entirely weird in a score of notation. I hid the tied notes trying to make it clear that you don't play them again (actually, you probably couldn't), but let them keep ringing.
In reply to You are all completely by rickexner
FYI, if you put the invisible stuff in voice 2 and made all of voice 2 invisible it would look nicer. e,g, the 1st note in the 2nd triplet would not have a super long stem so the triplet bracket would be straight. The ties will work if you click the voice 1 note and ctrl-click the voice 2 note.
In reply to You are all completely by rickexner
May be "Pedal" line and "Let Ring" is good alternative.
In reply to May be "Pedal" line and "Let by Ziya Mete Demircan
It is less cluttered. Although the Let Ring instructions would be numerous also.
I noticed you expressed the A# in the first measure as a B flat. Is that more correct for the key of D? I don't even know.
In reply to It is less cluttered. by rickexner
Less, confusing :)
for readability i choose 'bb'.
--
For let ring: Use one time for explanation ...
after; use an abbreviation (LR); or not use any text later. :)
Player knows that lines is what for anymore.