Multiple dynamics changed piece
Because I didn't know the entire part would be affected by the dynamics I put into it, my piece sounds a lot better than it should. If someone could tell me what is actually heard for dynamics within the piece it would be much appreciated.
I have separated the instruments in question into parts.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Audiounknown.mscz | 54.14 KB |
Comments
If you want to have separate dynamics for the individual staves of a single instrument, use the Inspector to set the dynamic range to staff instead of part.
In reply to If you want to have separate… by Marc Sabatella
Yes, but as soon as I did that the audio broke, then after I copied and pasted each part into its own separate instrument it sounded worse because the other dynamics were actually working. I was asking if anyone knew what it actually sounded like for the dynamics so that I could change the song to be accurate while keeping some of the accidental dynamics. I just need to know what it is actually playing in terms of what is forte & what it crescendos to.
In reply to Yes, but as soon as I did… by L0L2G00D
I'm not sure what you asking. Are you suspecting it will sound different on our system than your system? I've loaded your score. Which specific notes are you interested in knowing about?
In reply to I'm not sure what you asking… by Marc Sabatella
the dynamics ended up merging so I'm not sure how the overall dynamics of the piece changed for example in the screenshot it didn't have 1 hand mf and the other mp, but I'm not quite sure what dynamic is actually used because both are applied. also in the screenshot does it decrescendo down to p or pp, when does it actually crescendo from and what volume.
mainly what I am asking is what comes out of these dynamics and is actually played?
main bars in question are:
the piano part bar 5 to 12, bar 17,
the vonticello part bar 9 to 16, bar 51, bar 74 to 78
the double bass part bar 69 to 78
Also if you see another example of different dynamics for the same part could you please tell me the heard dynamics as in which is applied when and (if possible) how it could be re-written to produce the same volumes
In reply to the dynamics ended up… by L0L2G00D
What I hear reflects what I see in the Inspector, which again, doesn't really reflect the text. So I'm wondering why you made these changes, and why you don't simply listen for yourself? I am guessing you somehow suspect it will sound different for us than for you, but again, we'd need you tell us a specific note - not entire long passages - in order to for us to say.
In reply to What I hear reflects what I… by Marc Sabatella
I was hoping you could show me how it could be rewritten to sound the same using only one lot of dynamics. If you can do that for just one passage of music then I could figure out the rest myself.
In reply to I was hoping you could show… by L0L2G00D
Sorry, what you are asking isn't at all clear. Can you post one simple short score, with one single problem, and describe that one single change you'd like to make to it?
In reply to Sorry, what you are asking… by Marc Sabatella
there are 2 dynamics that are written that are having an effect on 1 part
how can I rewrite those dynamics to sound the same but with one piece of text.
Here's an example of what I want though my solution may not be correct
In reply to there are 2 dynamics that… by L0L2G00D
I see nine dynamics markings and six hairpins. Again, which specific marking are you having a problem with> Are you saying you want there to be one single piece of text you write that means to a human musician, "play top staff mf throughout but bottom staff with a series of different and constantly changing dynamics", as you appear to be showing in measures 4-5? As a human musician, I can assure you there is no such marking :-)
In reply to I see nine dynamics markings… by Marc Sabatella
the dynamics that were written affect both staves. in the first 2 measures there are some dynamic markings that get applied over one another, and on the last 2 measures is a rewritten dynamic marking that acts in the same way. My question is would someone be able to help me do that with my other piece. That is take 2 overlapping dynamics instructions and rewrite them as one single dynamic instruction.
this is shown by the 2 last measures of the example where there is only a single dynamic instruction that probably comes out the same way musescore plays the first two measures (the dynamics apply to the entire part).
In reply to the dynamics that were… by L0L2G00D
I'm sorry, again, can you please talk about one specific dynamic marking you are wondering about, and what specifically about that one specific dynamic marking you are wondering about?
As it is, I see too many dynamics markings to understand which specific one you are curious about. But as far as I can tell it's really just about setting the dynamic range, as discussed previously. Set to "part", it affects both staves. Set to "staff", it affects only the staff it is attached to. Whatever it is you are trying to do, that is presumably the key.
In reply to I'm sorry, again, can you… by Marc Sabatella
Is the first note forte and the second piano?
In reply to Is the first note forte and… by L0L2G00D
Yes, it does happen to be that way today, although you can't rely on this, since the score is not really valid as is. You have conflicting dynamics - two different dynamics on the first beat, both set to "part" trathewr than staff. That's nonsense; the system will just kind of randomly decide which to honor. if you wish to have different dynamics on different staves, you must set them to "staff" instead of "part".
You wrote:
If someone could tell me what is actually heard for dynamics...
Do you mean this?
![Dynamics_Velocities.jpg]( "Dynamics_Velocities.jpg")
In reply to You wrote: If someone could… by Jm6stringer
sorry, I didn't explain clearly enough,
the dynamics have ended up merging by being applied to both lines for each piece at once, so I'm not sure how the overall dynamics of the piece changed for example in the screenshot it didn't have 1 hand mf and the other mp, but I'm not quite sure what dynamic is actually used because both are applied. also in the screenshot does it decrescendo down to p or pp, when does it actually crescendo from and what volume.
mainly what I am asking is what comes out of these dynamics and is actually played?
main bars in question are:
the piano part bar 5 to 12, bar 17,
the vonticello part bar 9 to 16, bar 51, bar 74 to 78
the double bass part bar 69 to 78
Also if you see another example of different dynamics for the same part could you please tell me the heard dynamics as in which is applied when and (if possible) how it could be re-written to produce the same volumes
In reply to sorry, I didn't explain… by L0L2G00D
You wrote:
show me how it could be rewritten to sound the same using only one lot of dynamics.
Also:
there are 2 dynamics that are written that are having an effect on 1 part
how can I rewrite those dynamics to sound the same but with one piece of text.
And:
take 2 overlapping dynamics instructions and rewrite them as one single dynamic instruction.
O.K.
![piano_dynamics.png]( "piano_dynamics.png")
Looking at your very first attachment which you posted above - Audiounknown.mscz.
If you focus on the piano part, you will see that the top (treble clef) staff has most of the dynamics markings, so let's keep them. (After all, you put them there for a reason.)
Also, that bass clef staff shows some dynamic markings that either show duplicates of (or are very similar to) the treble clef.
This one, in particular, doesn't make much sense. For example, look at the hairpin and dynamic markings here:
Anyway, here are two suggestions.
The simple fix is to...:
Right click on a dynamic in the bass clef of the piano. Select -> All Similar Elements in Same Staff, then delete.
Then do the same for the hairpins that remain (in the bass clef staff).
Here's the result:
Audiounknown2.mscz
If this score is unfinished and you intend to add notes to the blank treble staff at the end, add new dynamics. If not, you will have to replace any deleted dynamic markings as the bass clef is the only piano staff containing notes at that point.
Another fix, keeping all the score's dynamic markings, but applying the dynamic range to the individual staff rather than the part:
Right click on any dynamic. Select -> All similar elements then, in the Inspector, set 'Dynamic range' to 'Staff'.
This will allow each dynamic marking to apply to the individual staff it is assigned to. This will apply also to the string instruments.
Result:
Audiounknown3.mscz
In reply to You wrote: show me how it… by Jm6stringer
I tried a couple of solutions before coming to a forum. The first was what you did in score 3, which if you listen to it, there are multiple issues with it becoming jittery and far more unpleasant. Here's a recording - https://youtu.be/I1POpCycvkA
The second thing I tried was copying the entire staff into a new instrument as shown in number four and it changed how the piece sounded.
what I was hoping to get from this forum is someone could help me with was rewriting the dynamics in such a way that I could have 1 string of dynamics instead of the 2 overlapping ones, for which I could use to alter my piece to sound the way it normally sounds, before changing with how I did in the score below, but sounding how it used to.
In reply to I tried a couple of… by L0L2G00D
Once again, if you tell us one single dynamic that does not do what you want, we can help. Scores full of multiple conflicting don't make sense. How can you expect reasonable result if you tell the same instrument to play both "f" and "p" at the same time? It makes no sense to MuseScore or to us, and that's why we are having trouble assisting. Also, talking about how a score "used to" sound isn't useful to us; we don't know how it sounded before.
Again, a single score with a single dyamic, and single clear explanation of what you want that dynamic to do other than what it does by default, would help us help you.
Earlier, you wrote:
*mainly what I am asking is what comes out of these dynamics and is actually played?
main bars in question are:
the piano part bar 5 to 12, bar 17,
the vonticello part bar 9 to 16, bar 51, bar 74 to 78
the double bass part bar 69 to 78*
You can inspect those bars in your score using the piano roll editor. The PRE will show you the velocity values of the notes that are played. You can then deduce what dynamic marking is being honored and "see" when a hairpin is executed (seen as a rising or falling line in the levels display area).
just remember that ppp = 16; pp = 33; p = 49; etc. (see my other post showing the dynamic/velocity values).
Here are shown the first bars of your original attachment:
![PRE.png]( "PRE.png")
Using the PRE and observing the treble clef staff, and then observing the bass clef staff, you will see (compared with viewing the score) which dynamic markings and hairpins are honored and which ones are ignored due to conflicts.
For instance, in the picture above, there is a conflict at the first mp which should be an mf followed by a desc. to p (as what the score shows in the staff at that point).
What actually plays is an immediate drop from mp to p followed by the cresc. to mp.
Using the PRE will show which dynamics (and hairpins) are actually played, so you can keep the ones that you like, and delete the (conflicting) ones that aren't honored during playback.
See:
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/piano-roll-editor#Overview
In reply to Earlier, you wrote: *mainly… by Jm6stringer
this is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.