D.C. al Coda stops fermata chord playback
I've never run into this before, until now with this Beethoven string trio. I inputted the Minuet as usual. I added D.C. al Coda and To Coda and a Coda sign and added the section break to the measure after the end of the minuet to let there be a pause between the minuet and the rondo finale, just like I usually do with Minuet and Trio movements.
But for some reason, with Muse Sounds anyway, the fermata chord at the end of the trio will only sound if the Da Capo is not present. It's weird and totally unexpected. I tried changing the dynamic in case it was just an issue of the particular samples it hit being too quiet. Nope, that wasn't it. I tried closing and reopening the score to see if that would fix it like with the silent notes on repeat bug in the past, that didn't do anything unfortunately.
So I'm basically stuck with either having the Da Capo but not the fermata chord sounding, or having the fermata chord sounding, but not having the Da Capo to bring it back to the A section as is supposed to be. Here's the score, the minuet starts on page 20 and the Da Capo mark is on page 23.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| String Trio no. 4 in D Op. 9 no. 2.mscz | 239.51 KB |
Comments
Does it look similar?
https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/21289#issuecomment-192008…
In reply to Does it look similar? https:… by mercuree
I don’t think so, cause that one is about repeat barlines and no fermatas and states that it keeps playing the measure before. Whereas mine is with a Da Capo jump and a fermata and with the playback stopping completely.
Did you enter this all yourself, or did you start with a PDF? Or some other source?
Is This for playback or real players? Or both?
I know you aren't done, yet. All the sf and fp markings that MU4 can't reproduce make this hard to listen to. I can't tell that the hidden dynamics make any difference. Or the swells.
I did notice that if I change the last bar line to a repeat, then the measure plays. So somewhere there is something that MU4 doesn't like. I could be anywhere. Even in another movement.
Just now, that gave me the idea to delete everything but the Minuet. Then the hold played, and returned to the start. Hope this helps.
In reply to Did you enter this all… by bobjp
I entered it all myself manually. It’s for both players and playback. The hidden dynamics are making a difference, there are passages in the violin and cello that would otherwise not be heard if I hadn’t put the mp there. Like when the cello goes up to tenor clef for example, at p, it’s barely audible, but at mp, it’s quiet but easily heard. Same thing with high register violin. And sometimes the playback just hits a very quiet sample of the note that in other places at the same dynamic is easily heard, so more invisible mp dynamics and more dynamic style staff text. The swells are also making a difference, plus they are what Beethoven wrote.
I do try to match the notation of the PDFs I find on IMSLP as much as is feasible, but I also know when it’s too much, like cello treble clef to mean octave transposition(which is what I see in the older editions for this trio that I generally gravitate towards) is obviously something that I don’t copy in there, but atypical beaming is. That’s the for players part.
But I also know that I sometimes have to do workarounds for things like trills with grace notes(acciaccaturas to be specific, since for the other type, I can just put the grace note after on the note before the trill and everything will sound properly) before them(writing out the trill as 32nds or whatever on an added staff, adding the acciaccatura to the first of those notes, making the visible trill note silent and hiding the added staff), violin and cello samples being too quiet(the invisible mp dynamic I mentioned earlier), trills at very slow tempos not sounding like trills(same workaround as the grace note trill minus the grace note) and section breaks in movements with repeats/Da Capo jumps(invisible measure trick). That’s the for playback part.
In reply to I entered it all myself… by Caters
I'm not really being critical of your work. I'm critical of how MU4 plays it. On my system, which is pretty good, and using headphones, certain things don't come across well. the start of the Minuet, for example. The first note I hear in the violin part is the A. Then because of the fp the next two measures are almost lost. Measure 9, the staccato B is inaudible. 10-14 fades in and out. Mostly out. 19-29 the sf markings blast out then the sound almost goes away.
That isn't you. That's the way MU4 plays it. Maybe your system plays it differently. But if this is for general consumption, there are things to think about.
Something earlier could be causing your problem at the end of the minuet. Sounds odd, I know. There is the case, I recall, of a tuba part in someone's score. Towards the end the tuba held a quarter note out until the end of the piece. Some 30 measures later. Turns out that way earlier, there was a pizz marking in the tuba part. The mark had no immediate affect. Removing the pizz made the score play properly. Something might be incorrect earlier in your piece. Shown by deleting everything up to the minuet made it play properly. Who knows.
This can be a problem with transcription work. We want to be authentic. I get it. Especially older works can be a problem. Did the composer mark a score the way we see it today. Or are they added by some publisher. Do we have Beethoven's original score? What is the earliest version we have? How accurate is it?
In reply to I'm not really being… by bobjp
Beethoven’s manuscript for the trio is not available on IMSLP. And even if it was, I know that it would be very hard to read most likely cause that’s just how Beethoven manuscripts are. The earliest version that is available is Breitkopf und Härtel and they are generally very accurate in my experience(for full score anyway, can’t say the same for part scores of symphonies), often the go to edition for score videos on YouTube. That’s why I gravitate towards them over other old editions is accuracy and ease of reading. If I compare Breitkopf to an urtext like Henle for a piece which has both, they are virtually identical sans the difference between 1900s and 1800s notation, which isn’t that much except in spacing of notes and measures(Breitkopf being much more compact). Sure they may sometimes use octave transposed treble clef for high cello parts, an archaic notation, but I know to put in tenor clef instead if that’s the case and input the notes at sounding pitch.
In reply to Beethoven’s manuscript for… by Caters
Don't forget that that all this music was written to be played by real musicians. A computer can't come close. A computer can't begin to interpret notes on a page. No two real musicians will play the same piece the same way. What we know as Classical music was not popular or well known in its day. Beethoven's orchestra was not the huge beast they are today. Everything was quieter. Playing techniques where quit different. We don't really know how any of this music was actually performed. Every instrument from his time has either been greatly altered or gone extinct. Stradivarius violins (save for one that is not played) have all had their necks replaced. The internal bracing has been replaced so they can use steel strings. All of which changes the sound. There were no chin or shoulder rests. Vibrato was pretty much unheard of. Everything surrounding the printed page has been updated.
Many Baroque concertos were never totally written out. They might only be a lead sheet over a figured bass. The musicians played this stuff so often that they didn't need parts written out. Much like jazz today. And yet publishers come along and create orchestrations of these pieces. How accurate are they?