Please remember transpose settings.
I'm writing a piece that starts normal in F, but then modulates left and right, introducing many double flats. I decided to enharmonically respell certain passages by "transpose down by diminished second" (That's brilliant btw! Whoever thought of that...)
So I select a passage 1. menu: tools transpose 2. click "by interval" 3. click "down" 4. click menu, scroll, click 5. click "Ok".
And then I select the next passage to apply the same. Same steps. Why doesn't it remember the transpose settings?
Comments
It doesn't by default because in general it would be quite rare to need to transpose by the same interval multiple times in a row. But indeed, it's a reasonable option that has been requested before.
In reply to It doesn't by default… by Marc Sabatella
In a similar vein, I think it makes no sense to have "Use double sharps and flats" as the default option in the transpose dialog. I almost never choose this option, and to have to change it every time I use the transpose command seems silly.
My 2¢.
In reply to In a similar vein, I think… by Edly
Strong disagree. Double flats and sharps come from being theoretically correct. I think that should be the default. Only in modern atonal music can you do enharmonic respellings without any meaning.
But ok, we're only talking about the default here. As long as my preferences get remembered, I wouldn't go crying if the default changed. But then, if the preferences get remembered you also only need to set this option once, right?
In reply to Strong disagree. Double… by Victotronics
Ah well. There is theory and there is practicality. Consider that the listener ( you know the reason the music is written to begin with) has no idea if a note is has an accidental associated with it. The performer only needs a practical way to know what the pitch that needs to be played is.
No one will care. Well, except for those kids in theory class. How do I know. I have a rather expensive music ed. degree. Oh yes, I could compose in all the modes. Analyze a Chopin Etude for melodic and harmonic content. write accurate 16th Century counterpoint. Sight read solfege changing key and clef. Write down four part harmony as it is played. Analyze 12 tone music. And on, and on, and... I went on in my music career to not use 80% of it. I don't begrudge the use of double sharps or flats. Fine. But the need to theoretically correct I think detracts from what music really is. But that's just me.
In reply to Ah well. There is theory and… by bobjp
The the thing is, in many cases, doube-sharps and double-flats aren't just "theoretically correct" - they make the music easier to read. Consider, for example, the leading tone in the key of G# minor (probably one of the most common cases for double sharp there is). Spell it correctly as Fx and your scale looks like a scale - alternating lines and spaces. Spell it incorrectly as G natural and you end up with a skipped note and a repeat note and suddenly it doesn't look like a scale anymore, creating temporary confusion in the viewer's brain. Similarly, the V chord should be all lines or all spaces, but spelled incorrectly, it looks like some other shape, also breaking the normal pattern recognition that people rely on to be able to sight-read effectively. For that matter, consider a line alternating between the tonic and leading tone, which written correctly shows the direction of the line correct (noteheads moving down the line moves down, moving up when the line does), but written incorrectly all the notes are on the same line or space and you have to manually parse each and every accidental rather than simply read the shape of the line.
Here's an illustration of those cases:
Some enharmonic lies can occasionally improve readability, but these need to be considered case by case - and it doesn't just apply to double-flats or double-sharps, either. Sometimes ordinary flats or sharps also need to be repelled for readability in highly chromatic lines. But merely assuming all double-sharps or double-flats should be avoided will lead to music that is harder to read than necessary.
In reply to The the thing is, in many… by Marc Sabatella
Sure, I understand the need for double sharps and flats. And in the miniscule number of pieces I write that might be played by real musicians (though not likely) I am careful about notation. And I would never consciously write in G sharp minor.
Let's consider a simple line of quarter notes in F sharp minor. F sharp, F natural, F sharp, F double sharp. Yes, that line of F's looks nice and neat and easy to read. But my pour brain runs into a problem with F double sharp. I play some variation of an F when I play the other notes. And in theory the double sharp is a variation of F. But in reality it is a G.
I write relatively simple music for playback only. I write for local amateur stage productions or videos that I create. I realize this is not what the OP was about. And I probably shouldn't have posted anything. It's just that the phrase "theoretically correct" is a trigger for me. My bad :-)
In reply to Sure, I understand the need… by bobjp
Well sure, so why write that? The point is about transpositon and the double-sharps that naturally result. The example you describe is not one that would normally arise from the transposition of a well-spelled line in the first place. And that's the point here - the double sharps that actually result from transposition of a line that was readable before the transposition are normally exactly the ones that are also required for good readability after the transposition. Not every single case, but many if not most of them.
Stated another way - if transposition results in a double-sharp that is not as readable as an enharmonic respelling, chances are, the original accidental also should have respelled. Not always, but often.
In reply to Well sure, so why write that… by Marc Sabatella
And what is the deciding factor for readability. Personally, in G sharp minor, I'd rather see G natural than F double sharp. Especially if there where other naturals that where in the piece. Even if it isn't theoretically correct. People get all worked up over parallel 4ths and 5ths. Theory tells us to avoid them. And I try to. But, as we know, theory was developed to explain how things were done, in general. Not necessarily how things should be done. Your music won't sound good if there is a parallel fourth in there. The problem is that you can follow all the rules and still not have good music. The fact that we have to say, "It should be done a certain way. Not always but often.", is a quandary. Because what is more readable for one person may not be for another. I'm all for theory, but like I said , theoretical correctness can be a hot button for me. But not really worth pursuing any more.
In reply to And what is the deciding… by bobjp
Put 100 people in a room, give 50 of them my top example and 50 of them the bottom example, and I'll give you my car if you find people from the second group playing it better on average than people from the first group. I doubt very much you'll find even the best reader in the second group playing it as well as the worst reader in the first group. I won't stake my car on that, but I'll buy you a beer :-)
Again, this isn't about theoretical correctness. It's about simple visual pattern recognition.
EDIT: oh, I see somehow my picture got lost. Here is the one I meant to attach:
My prediction is the first two measures will be more or less a wash, but the third measure will be a landslide win for the people with the correct version.
Parallel fifths have absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Parallel fifths have nothing to do with correct or readable notation - it's just about what sounds happened to be favored by certain composers in certain genres. Your music will be equally readable whether it contains parallel fifths or not. It might even be perceived as equally "good" either way, if you are writing in a style where parallel fifths don't sound out of place. This is entirely unlike the situation with rules about notation, where the incorrect notation will often cause the music to be misread.
In reply to Put 100 people in a room,… by Marc Sabatella
Yes, I know that being able to see patterns and sight read things quickly is important to you. As It should be for certain musicians. I get it. There are studio musicians who have to be able to record music without rehearsal. But it isn't important for many people.
Once I saw the pattern, the third measure of the second line made much more sense to me than the top line.
And if it isn't about theoretical correctness, how do you determine that one of your examples is incorrect notation. You seem to be saying that the one that is harder to read is incorrect. Harder to read for who. If 80 people read the upper line better. Great. Does that make it correct? What about the 10 who read the lower line better? What about the next hundred people we test? What if it is just the opposite?
You say that things like parallel fifths have nothing to do with correct notation. The fact that there are many who would disagree is not as important as this: Anyone's music will sound the same whether or not double sharps an flats are used.
In reply to Yes, I know that being able… by bobjp
Pattern recognition is not just important to me. It's important to every single person who is even moderately proficient at reading. Not just a tiny percentage of professional studio musicians. Literally everyone who is at all good at reading, is good precisely because they have learned to recognize patterns. They might not be able to verbalize the patterns, but they absolutely to worse when presented with music that breaks these patterns.
Theoretical correctness often leads to better readability. Sometimes, as I already mentioned, it does not. And in those cases indeed,d it can make sense to deliberately misspell things. But the first step in doing this successfully is recognizing what the patterns are that make for better reading.
In reply to Pattern recognition is not… by Marc Sabatella
As a regular sight reader I can confirm that pattern recognition is the be all and end all. Anything that doesn't follow conventional notation practice is likely to trip up the readers and when the MD complains about their fumbles they are going to cite the unconventional notation as the cause. "It wasn't my fault. It was the dumb arranger!". Being presented with a G minor scale that includes a G nat rather than an Fx as the leading tone is at best going to cause amusement but more likely derision at the arranger. If you can stand being the butt of those comments you can spell notes however you like but don't expect to be top of the list of who to call.
In reply to As a regular sight reader I… by SteveBlower
I'm not advocating for improper notation. Just wondering what the standard is. Notation should be easy to read. Of course. Organised? You bet. I've been is many different kinds of music groups, and played many different kinds of music. And seen all kinds of notation. From Renaissance on up. But only on a civic (non professional) level. Of course, technically, F double sharp as a leading tone should be used in G sharp minor. But if a musician is indeed a professional and is thrown by a G natural and feels the need to complain about it, rather than just play it and move on, well I have to wonder.
OTOH, I don't have the luxury of writing for real players. That doesn't at all mean I will write improper notation. I don't do arraigning or anything like that. I write for playback.
In reply to I'm not advocating for… by bobjp
If a musician is a professional whose livelihood depends on demonstrating sight reading skills then it is natural to look for an excuse when a goof is made. Scores with improperly spelled pitches or rhythms give a good opportunity to pass the buck for goofs to the arranger who is probably not present to defend themselves. That should provide a good incentive for arrangers to make scores as easy to read as possible.
In reply to I'm not advocating for… by bobjp
If you're writing for playback only, then there is absolutely no benefit in going out of your way to write incorrect harder-to-read notation.
And yes, professional musicians will generally be respectful enough not to criticize the notation unless feedback is requested. But, it's still the case that professionals and amateurs alike are more likely to actually play correctly when sight reading if it's written in a way that is designed to maximize readabilty. They'll move on without complaining either way, but the chances of it being played correctly before moving on are increased when you notate in the most readable way.
In reply to If you're writing for… by Marc Sabatella
I agree. My question is what is the metric for most readable? Is it that which is technically correct? That with the fewest accidentals (arrived at by proper transposition)? The one that looks the least cluttered (even though parts of the composers intent are missing)? Just because a musician thinks something should have been notated differently, does that make it so?
In reply to I agree. My question is what… by bobjp
There's definitely an art to it, more so than a science. But in general, the most important things are to make sure that steps look like steps where possible - so, adjacent line and space - and that things that are chords look like chords (so, line-line-line or space-space-space, etc) where possible. Because any reasonably experienced musician has a certain amount of "muscle memory" that can help when playing these common patterns. When you see something that looks basically like a scale, or like a chord, your fingers can start heading for the right keys/holes/valves while your brain is still processing the details. I think this is especially acute for piano, where you also need to be constantly looking ahead to plan your fingering base on the shape of the coming line.
In many cases, following those guiding principles will also have the side effect of minimizing the number of accidentals required. Consider my previous example with the back-and-forth between G# and Fx. The main reason it works so well is that you can see the direction of the line through the various ups and downs. But a side benefit is, it also means you don't need to constantly change accidentals. These two benefits don't always go hand-in-hand, but they do pretty often.
In reply to There's definitely an art to… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for your input.
In reply to In a similar vein, I think… by Edly
My preference would be the ability to select the default selection.
In reply to In a similar vein, I think… by Edly
I'm not sure where in the thread to post this, so I'll just put it here.
I've been fascinated and pleased by the discussion my humble little post has generated. Cool to hear different people's ideas. That said, I was, and still am, less concerned about what's right or wrong, and more concerned about each user being able to choose their own option without having to reset it each time. Simple.
In reply to It doesn't by default… by Marc Sabatella
My scores are not terribly adventurous, but I'm running into this issue surprisingly often. Not sure what I do that's not "general".