Various dynamics request

• Nov 14, 2015 - 22:03
S5 - Suggestion


It'd be nice to have the following:
-crescendo poco a poco
-crescendo sempre
-poco mf
-ben mf
-quasi f
-ben f
-poco p
-slanciando gradatamente
-animando sempre



Sorry, you're missing the point.

I know I can edit dynamic markings to simply say something else, but that will have no effect on the volume of notes being played.

I don't simply want to have a visually different dynamic, MuseScore would have to also actually take into account and adjust volume accordingly. Without these being prebuild as options, merely changing the text of a dynamic by even double-clicking it and typing poco in front won't change a thing.

Hence the request for these to actually be built-in.

Poco is perhaps the most popular. As a radical for different dynamics that is.

Ah, I see. The other thing is that you can also change the volume effect of a dynamic via the "Velocity" setting in the Inspector (and yes, I know, this really ought to be in the Handbook. I'll do it if you don't want to).

Does "ugualissimo" really exist? I have never heard such a word (and, yes, I am an Italian native speaker) outside of colloquial, informal (and a bit childish) speech.

Well, yes, not all scores in the world are digitized yet, and as such, a search engine query won't throw results up.

This isn't a list per say, it's me trying to digitize scores some scores by Romanian composer Sigismund Toduță. But Romanian composers aren't the only ones to use these.

Indeed, I was just thinking today how cool it would be if MuseScore would partner with IMSLP so as for more and more scores to be digitized (you know what I mean).

The only problem with that is you'll have an enormous burden on notation in terms of adding new features.

But anyways, I am happy to see posts by you lasconic, as you were always the more analytical/logical one and immediately understood what a certain query was about.

I will try and find time to define all of these for you guys.


A good place to start is… (I'm not sure why this isn't turning into a clickable hyperlink)

I didn't want to ask about smorzando... and a plethora of others that are missing from MuseScore.

Again, nothing in the handbook about smorzando, but it is used oh so many times in classical music pieces for piano.

And morendo, marcato, sotto voce, una voce...

I mean, this is all fourth grade stuff, in musical education in Romania that is.

I hate to come across as annoying, but is an even better place.

Indeed, not all are as popular, but if one is to transcribe great piano composers into MuseScore, he'll need a great deal more than just what is already available.

Of course, I don't expect you guys to put that entire list into MuseScore, but I can't say it wouldn't be nice to have it.

But I think what the great classics and romantics used throughout their works should be present in MuseScore. You know, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, and so on...


Again, though, you can have whatever marking you want already, and they *will* affect playback. Simply edit the marking and set its properties in the Inspector, and add it to your custom palette as document in the Handbook under "Custom palette". So one can already have every marking the great composers used.

Sorry, you are missing the point of such a symbol.

It is supposed to make a change without additional tweaking. Otherwise it should be labelled as a text only symbol that has no effect by itself, see Sibelius, the interface of which is a wealth of logic.

Who on earth wants to nit-pick every single dynamic they have to enter? What would be the point of the pallette then? Why not have no default symbols then, and have everyone create their own custom ones and save them. Time wasting.

All I'm saying is that there MuseScore should have built-in dynamics that change velocity all by themselves after being attached to a note, without requiring 100.000 ulterior actions to make it actually do something other than just being there as dead text.

However, the current choice is very minimal.

At least… should be added, otherwise I won't be able to transcribe a single proper score by Chopin for example without having to create a hundred custom dynamics........ Again, who wants to do that? Who has time for that? Isn't the point of a UI to be helpful and save time? Hence the existence of buttons. Why not simply add more dynamic buttons, and expand the list with popular items that are widely used, such as smorzando for example, and all of the other fortepiano, marcato, morendo, and so on so forth?

Not to mention that MuseScore caps dynamics at fff. What about ffff??? Do I really manually have to create that as well? Yes, the everyday pop music transcriber that doesn't know anything other than lady gaga will not even know such things exist. But for professionals that actually want to put MuseScore to good use and invest testing and development into it, (practically, time), it will need to have more than just fff.

Unless MuseScore wishes to simply remain mediocre as a tool, regardless of how open-source and cross-platform it is.

Good thing it wasn't decided that there would simply be no pallette and that everyone should create their own custom everything. It's not like I'm asking for something that isn't a standard.

I won't be able to transcribe a single proper score by Chopin for example without having to create a hundred custom dynamics........ Again, who wants to do that? Who has time for that? Isn't the point of a UI to be helpful and save time?

Who wants to open their dynamics palette and have it fill the whole screen with an impossible-to-sort through complete list of all words used in music, either?

I would. And many others. It's always best too have more choice than none.

And besides, obviously these would only be in the advanced mode of the pallette.

It's always better to have too much to choose from than to be missing elementary options.

Okay. Let's think about this. What velocity effect should each of the dynamics you propose have? The current dynamics with pre-assigned effects:

pppppp = 1
ppppp = 5
pppp = 10
ppp = 16
pp = 33
p = 49
mp = 64
mf = 80
f = 96
ff = 112
fff = 126
ffff, fffff, ffffff = 127 (accurate considering that it's not physically possible to produce much more sound than fff)

Other standard dynamics already included but without playback effect typically are meant to differently affect the immediate note and following notes, which is not supported currently.

Some of the ones you listed are actually tempo indications, or "mood" indications (which would be particularly tricky for a computer to understand). Others indicate gradual dynamic changes, and are thus more like hairpins (though the next version of MuseScore will provide easy support for creating them with playback effect—thank you, Marc Sabatella: #74171: Implement "cresc." dashed line as alternative to hairpin). But a few of those that are left might be realistically implemented. So, what would you expect from "quasi f"?

Again, once you decide what value you want for each of these symbols, add it to your palette and you never have to think about it again. It's a very simple thing to do.

The point is, MuseScore should not provide a palette with every single marking ever used by any human being anywhere in the world. We have to make some choices - which markings are common enough to be worth including by default and which will simply clutter the user interface and make it hard to find other markings. It is *not* unreasonable.

Well then, professional concert pianists such as myself will have to turn to something other than MuseScore to transcribe Chopin and others into a digital score that actually also plays back to some extent for the purpose of giving students a feel for absolute rhythmicity.

Again, I wasn't being unreasonable in what I was asking, I also said that more popular symbols should be added.

For concert pianists, smorzando is something that is used on a daily basis by romantic composers.

And, to be honest, it wouldn't hurt at all if MuseScore were actually that versatile. You could create a whole new category for it above advanced, and call it expert or something, under which all of the more advanced ones would be shown.

Why force people to always have to create manual palettes, when they could come pre-embeded?

Or at least it would be nice to have custom palette sharing online, where people would keep on adding to one and make it bigger, but then again, how would one ensure that those are actually going to be accurate?

Anyways, all I was asking for was for MuseScore to be more versatile and mature. If you guys want to keep it at the level it currently is, that's your choice, I'll no longer be contributing time (which is worth so much more than money) to it.


So can you explain in computer-understandable terms how you expect playback to change with the word "smorzando"? But still, please understand that while I might like cresc. poco a poco to be a one-click default myself (and it could be), a Percy Grainger acolyte would want louden bit by bit instead, and to accommodate all of everyone's frequently used musical terms (I'm sure you would agree it would be inappropriate to pander only to what comes up frequently in one person's work), an overload of palette items that I would never in my life use is not something that I would want (because—you guessed it—of the amount of time that would be wasted searching through the unnecessary clutter for the things I want). And that's why MuseScore just is not going to do that to its users. (Although, that's where the custom palette feature comes in, enabling you to set that up if you want it—is that something that your preferred Sibelius allows?)

Again, it is quite sinply untrue that MuseScore cannot play back non-standard / rare dynamics. You simply need to trake an additional two seconds to set the desired level in the Inspector.

But anyhow, no doubt, given that MuseScore has to make some decisions as to which markings are common enough for inclusion, there is room for debate as which *specifically* should be included. Feel free to do some research and present a prioritized list of the top, say, 25-50 dynamics, maybe with statistics saying what percentage of scores worldwide use them, so we can get a better sense of where the "knees" in the curve are.

Status (old) needs info closed

If you guys want to keep it at the level it currently is, that's your choice, I'll no longer be contributing time
It says it all. Our time is as valuable as yours. I close this issue. Thank you all for your input.