Dynamics volume settings MU4.02
Chromebook /linux mouse imput
Is there a way of changing the volumes of the dynamics. The handbook seems to imply there is, but then I never find how. I found the chart of what the settings are now, but I prefer to change some of them. In the past there was a way. Does MU4 still have such?
Comments
Not that I know of. In Basic sounds you can change the velocity of individual notes.
In reply to Not that I know of. In Basic… by bobjp
Too bad. Afraid that was the case. It was great to have had the option in past versions. Individual notes is not what I want/need. Just seems my luck of late! Thanks.
You can change as many notes at once as you like, so it's basically the same as editing the dynamic, kind of. This is just an intermediate step toward a far more powerful system planned for a future update, where you can actually draw in volume curves etc.
In reply to You can change as many notes… by Marc Sabatella
Marc
Not sure I am following you totally. I wish to change the volume numbers for a few of the dynamics. Something that was possible in the past. The handbook implies this might be possible, but does not carry through with how. In the past it was possible to change those volume numbers for the dynamics. I just do not use all of the dynamics given, but would like to make the ones I do more relevant to each other as a group. I am not totally satisfied with the volume numbers selected. I do not think changing individual notes will be that helpful in a large orchestral score. Thanks as always for the thought.
In reply to Marc Not sure I am following… by R. L. F.
I guess I'm having trouble imagining the real world situation where want every single occurrence of a given dynamic marking to be other than what it is marked, and by the exact same fixed amount. Anyhow, MuseScore no longer uses plain MIDI for this, which is one reason the old 1990's-based method isn't really the way to go forward. But from what I've seen of the new system being designed, it's going to be a ton more powerful than anything that was ever possible before.
In reply to I guess I'm having trouble… by Marc Sabatella
Marc
I guess I am not making things clear from your response. These are not the exact volume numbers in the handbook chart, but I think it may help. pp=30 , p= 40, mp=50, mf= 70, f=80, ff= 90, or whatever they are. These are not the exact spread I want. I would like to change the group to be what I like and not what someone else thinks is appropriate. In the past this was possible(though maybe MU2) and I do not think that has anything to do with midi or the 90's. And this is still every occurrence being the same, just the same as I would like. This includes multiple reasons of my need/choosing! Hope this clears my request, further. Unfortunately, it probably does not change anything. (I think that previous option was Very powerful)
In reply to Marc I guess I am not making… by R. L. F.
No, you're makign it clear what you are trying to do - I'm just saying it seems like an extremely odd thing to want to do. I mean, literally saying you want every single "p" to not actually be what was recorded as "p" by the professional musicians that were sampled, but instead make them allsomewhat louder or softer, and by the exact same amount? I'm just really struggling to imagine any real world use case for that. Surely not every single "p" in the entire score is one you'd want played exactly the same, and differently from how the professional musicians who recorded it would have played it?
The relevance of the 90's is, that's where that system of using numbers 1-127 to indicate volume comes from. That system is called MIDI, and it's been mostly replaced in MuseScore 4 by a more sophisticated system that will support far more powerful controls. But it will take time to develop those controls. So temporarily, we're stuck indeed with a few months in which the old 90's style controls aren't supported but the new modern and far more powerful ones aren't there yet.
In reply to No, you're makign it clear… by Marc Sabatella
That's what they call the donut hole like in American medical insurance, except that these donut holes give you heartburn instead of curing it.
In reply to No, you're makign it clear… by Marc Sabatella
I think you are implying musesounds. I have not yet loaded them in, though am considering such. Yet, how is my wanting to change 'p' from 32 to 30 in volume setting such a problem. Are you saying every 'p' played by the 'professionals' in musesounds is at a different volume level? I find that very hard to believe! So, I do not see much difference in my setting the volumes for all dynamics versus what someone else has chosen/played, except they are what I want as a grouping. I do not use all those dynamic markings so I would like them to be relative to the others.
But, I understand the option is not available anymore. It was great when used in the past. And as I said, it does seem as if the handbooks are saying it is still there. Sorry a volume grouping of dynamics I would chose seems confusing.
In reply to I think you are implying … by R. L. F.
Yes, I'm mostly talking about Muse Sounds, but even when using old-school soundfonts, the internal synthesizer engine is being rearchitected as well.
I'm not saying every professional musicians plays "p" the same way. I'm saying, they don't play every single "p" the exact same way - dynamics in real music tends to be context-dependent. A "p" in one piece with one instrumentation is different form a "p" in another with different instrumentation, and within a single piece, a "p" in one passage is different from a "p" in another. If the difference between 32 and 30 is significant, it's that much more important to not blindly apply it equally everywhere, or you destroy the musicality.
That's why it is is so much more powerful to be able to easily change dynamic at that level, and that's why this is the type of system being designed - to help make it far simpler than ever before to shape the dynamics of your pieces without resorting to "sledgehammer" approaches like globally changing all p's everywhere. Again, temporarily it's a bit harder, but that is just to make soom for the much better system to come. Supporting both systems would greatly complicate things, thus delaying the introduction of more new features, slow the fixing of bugs, etc.
As for the Handbook - can you post the URL of the page with the error so we fix it?
In reply to Yes, I'm mostly talking… by Marc Sabatella
I understand what you are saying, Marc. And no I do not expect you to keep both functioning as once. Just sorry to have lost such a useful option(for me). At this juncture, I still do not see what the difference will be from what you are saying and what I am wishing were still available. The volumes are going to be the same in each occurrence, movement, work wherever, right now. In the future no? I will have to wait and see, I trust your word on it now.
For me it is not just a couple of volumes(a grouping), but one that I Do Not agree with the choice made and yet I have no option but to live with it. I know you do not agree, we have discussed it in the past, but it is how I use it and have used it in works for over 50 years! My teacher, a doctorate and Pulitzer nominated composer, had no problems with it at that time. There is no use going over it again. In the past I could change things as I prefer, but not at this time. And it is very annoying in playback to be stuck. I only asked hoping it was somehow still available. I will see if I can find the page I was looking at. It is not an error, but just confusing text.
Thanks for the thoughts as always.
In reply to I understand what you are… by R. L. F.
The difference will be you won't be forced to resort to sledgehammers like globally setting all "p" dynamics to a slightly different MIDI value just because some particular note or passage isn't sounding the way you want and it's far too much of a bother in older versions to shape the phrases individually. When the new features become available, it will be possible to get musically better results very quickly and easily, rather than resigning yourself to switching from one unmusical all-p's-are-equal result to a slightly different but still unmusician all-p's-are-equal result.
So again, no one is saying the current situation is better than before. I'm saying what is planned will be far better - like night and day better in terms of ease of creating more musical results. And it's just an unfortunate fact of like that supporting two competing systems at once is not really feasible for long term success of a product like MuseScore. So we just need to put up with one step backwards in order to prepare for the seven steps forward we'll be getting soon.
BTW, I wasn't aware your teacher from 50 years ago was using MuseScore at the time :-)
In reply to The difference will be you… by Marc Sabatella
I will be patiently, impatiently waiting.
My teacher was an early adopter of the program. Of course, it was before the name change. As I remember it was called "Pen N Ink" then. The UI was not as well developed. Much slower and stilted. It was not as touchy, though, but the delete feature was not nearly as effective. The only mouse was the one running along the wall. But--- the dynamics volume was 'easy' to set.... to 'exactly' what the performer played!!