dynamic properties do not work (Musescore 4 beta)
Every time I try to change the velocity of a dynamic, it always changes it back to the original setting. This also goes for the "Change speed feature".
Is there A way I can permanently change those things mentioned?
Comments
Can't reproduce this issue in OS: Linux Mint 21, Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 4.0.0-3318219903, revision: f46a89d
Setting velocity on dynamics is not supported in MuseScore 4, and the controls themselves are being removed to avoid confusion. Instead, velocity will be set on notes directly (once that is implemented). Eventually, a new system for controlling volume more simply will be designed.
I must admit: When I read Marc's response, I thought, "What—we can't define the velocities of dynamic marks? Is this the MS gang 'reinventing the wheel' again?" 😊
Then I thought about it, and realized what a smart choice it was. It's easy enough to select a range of notes whose velocities you wish to change, and allows finer control. (It also avoids confusion in two-staff parts... In Sibelius piano scores, I always had to copy sets of marks from treble clef to bass clef, then hide them—LOL.)
Unfortunately, while I can select notes in MS 4 (v. 4.0.1.230121751) and change their Velocities on the Properties palette, the changes have no effect. Meanwhile, dynamic marks are still obviously influencing playback, but too generally—and the Velocity option no longer appears when they're selected.
So this is something that's being implemented bit by bit? (Is there that much more to it, rather than just having the software send the velocity messages it's associated with notes rather than with dynamic marks?)
Is there any workaround for it meanwhile? I'd like to upload some of my pieces to the piano-music event we're having at Musescore.com, but don't want them to play back with exaggerated dynamics (it rather ruins the mood, y'know?). Thanks!
In reply to I must admit—when I read… by Andy Fielding
Muse Sounds currently does not implement velocity, that’s why it has no effect. That’s being worked on.
64 is the current default indeed - it means basically “no change from dynamic”. The plan is to eventually have this reflect the actual dynamic value. Then add the volume lanes as mentioned elsewhere.
In reply to Muse Sounds currently does… by Marc Sabatella
Hi Marc – I'm not sure what you mean by "Muse Sounds currently does not implement velocity". There's no question that dynamic marks are changing the volume in my piano piece—just in unnaturally large increments.
Here's what I don't get... There are many very realistic-sounding Muse Sound arrangements online now, up to and including full orchestras—for example:
Searching Four
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-fm0UeqVwU
How are these arrangers achieving such fine dynamic control if Muse Sound "does not [yet] implement velocity"? They can't possibly be using only the currently undefinable dynamics marks; such subtle variation would be impossible.
In reply to Hi Marc – This is a piano… by Andy Fielding
Yes, of course Muse Sounds supports the dynamic markings; they just don't support suer-specified velocity overrides yet. If you need that functionality at the moment, use a soundfont instead.
I think the existing dynamics do create pretty realistic effects already, but there are a few particular cases - specific notes at specific dynamic markings on specific instruments - where subjectively speaking, some might find a particular passage too loud or too soft. Presumably the score you are working on happens to use those particular notes, but the other scores you are don't happen to use those same notes. Or they use them in a context where it happens to balance with the other instruments more the way you would prefer.
In reply to Yes, of course Muse Sounds… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for explaining, Marc. The differences probably seem dramatic just because this is a single-instrument piece.
The sounds themselves are so excellent, I was just looking forward to hearing (and providing) a more lifelike performance. I guess I'll post it with all the dynamics deactivated; it's better than nothing. Cheers, A.
In reply to Yes, of course Muse Sounds… by Marc Sabatella
Um, actually, Marc, how do you turn off dynamic playback?
I figured this could be done via the Properties palette. But when I select one or more dynamic marks, the "Play" checkbox is disabled:
You'll notice it's also cleared (not selected)—which obviously isn't true, because these marks are definitely playing back... Is this a bug?
In reply to Um, actually, Marc, how do… by Andy Fielding
It's hard for me to imagine a case for which actually turning off all playback of dynamics would sound better than simply accepting the defauts, unless perhaps you've deliberately written in unrealistically extreme dynamics. But if you have such a case, the way I'd recommend creating non-playing dynamics is to add an "mf" from the palette then edit its text (using Cltr+Shift+letter for the special dynamics glyohs). That way it's still treated as a dynamic in terms of layout, MusicXML, etc. You can add these customized dynamics back to your palette for easy reuse.
EDIT: actually it seems Muse Sounds may still interpret these...
In reply to It's hard for me to imagine… by Marc Sabatella
[Sorry, I posted this in the wrong order]
In reply to Yes, of course Muse Sounds… by Marc Sabatella
Okay, I've found a workaround for dynamic marks.
First, I increased the size of System Text (Format > Text Styles > System) to 12 pt., the same size (it turns out) as dynamic marks.
Then, for each type of mark (mp, mf, etc.), I created a non-playing version:
I was then able to replace all the dynamic marks with non-playing system-text versions that looked the same.
But hairpins are still playing back—and how can I replace those with non-playing versions? They, too, are obviously affecting playback dynamics, and their "Play" boxes are similarly disabled (and cleared).
In reply to Okay, I've found a… by Andy Fielding
Thanks for your reply, Marc.
Marc > It's hard for me to imagine a case for which actually turning off all playback of dynamics would sound better than simply accepting the defauts...
Well, imagine it, dude! I'm a long-time musician/composer/arranger—and I'm hearing what I'm hearing, or I wouldn't bother you about it. ☺️
If you have any ideas about silencing hairpins, I'm all ears (NPI). I'd really like to post this piece before the event ends, but I can't post it with this kind of playback. Thanks!
In reply to Thanks for your reply, Marc… by Andy Fielding
I suggest posting it here so we can advise better. Again, it’s virtually impossible to imagine what is going on because this is entirely contrary to our experience with hundreds of other scores. So we’d need to see:hear for ourselves in order to understand what unique qualities of this particular score you are dealing with and to suggest how to work around them.