Are such dynamics like mp-mf, mf-f, f-ff already possible in MS4?
I remember in MS3, we were able to create such dynamics and even fine-tune them. Do we currently have the ability to do so in MS4? By this, I don't just mean textual modifications, of course. If not, does anyone know if developers are moving in that direction?
Comments
Yes, look at the Dynamics palette: off to the left on the Palettes tab. They've always been in place.
In reply to Yes, look at the Dynamics… by TheHutch
-- Where are they there exactly? I only see the traditional ones like "f", "ff", "fp", "sf", "sfp", "ffff", "pppp", etc.:
![dynamics.jpg]( "dynamics.jpg")
but not the ones like "mp-mf", "mf-f", "f-ff", which we could create and adjust in MS3 when, say, "mp" was too soft and "mf" was too loud.
In reply to -- Where are they there… by innerthought
AFAIK, none of those things are possible, yet.
In reply to AFAIK, none of those things… by bobjp
AFAIK none of those things are really things in standard music notation or rather, they are things but not what the OP seems to think they are. Most players seeing mp-mf would understand that to mean play mp on the first time through and mf on the repeat. And that is also not possible in Musescore yet.
In reply to AFAIK none of those things… by SteveBlower
"Most players seeing mp-mf would understand that to mean play mp on the first time through and mf on the repeat."
-- But how do composers go about such cases like when they need something between mf and mp? I run into such situation with playback all the time.
In reply to "Most players seeing mp-mf… by innerthought
"how do composers go about such cases...""
They leave it to the musicality of the players to play at a suitable volume.
There is no fixed relationship between dynamic making and volume. It all depends on context. And that context needs to take into account many things. For example, a p dynamic will be treated differently by a soloist and by an accompanist, and by an accompanist when accompanying different soloists. Dynamics will be treated differently in rooms with different reverberative behaviours. Dynamics will be varied throughout a phrase, even with no written instruction in the score. The composer can't micromanage the performance, that is the players' job. Some players do it well, some don't.
In reply to "how do composers go about… by SteveBlower
@SteveBlower: "The composer can't micromanage the performance, that is the players' job."
-- I see. Well, then probably I should have not mentioned dynamics in my question at all. What I am really after here is the ability to change volume of one particular note on the score. It is just that in MS3 it was done by creating a new dynamic. Looks like we've lost that feature in MS4. Hopefully, it will be reinstated someday. I often encounter situations where an entire section sounds fine at one dynamic level in the playback, but one particular note suddenly either stands out too much or is too subdued, and I am sure this wouldn't happen if performed by a live musician.
In reply to @SteveBlower: "The composer… by innerthought
So you are being the musician and Musescore is your instrument. And instruments have their own particular ways if doing things and limitations.
In reply to -- Where are they there… by innerthought
I’ve often wondered why we have mezzo piano and mezzo forte, but no mezzo in between them…
In reply to I’ve often wondered why we… by mikey12045
Because dynamics are not set in stone. There is no set volume for any of them. Consider p. Piano. Pianos aren't soft. Yet that is the word we use. So p means soft. But how loud is soft? What volume is mf? Louder than mp but softer than f. In reality, it is all up to the performer. All the composer can do is suggest dynamics. The performer may not realize dynamics they same way the composer envisions them. That's what makes music. The composer puts notes on a page. But the performer actually makes music.
In reply to Because dynamics are not set… by bobjp
1) When I trip and fall, and bang myself on my piano (Yamaha C1, in case you were wondering), I'm quite aware that "Pianos aren't soft."
2) My old composition professor once quipped that poor performers played music--especially "new music"--uniformly mezzofortissimo.
In reply to 1) When I trip and fall, and… by wfazekas1
Maybe we need a Goldilocks dynamic: not too loud, not too soft, but just right.
In reply to Because dynamics are not set… by bobjp
@bobjp "The performer may not realize dynamics they same way the composer envisions them. That's what makes music. The composer puts notes on a page. But the performer actually makes music."
-- Hopefully, with the emergence of such kind of software like MuseScore, that era is passing away because the composer now is able, besides just specifying dynamics on paper, to add playback to his creation and inform the performer exactly about what kind of level of volume and intensity he intends behind each note.
In reply to @bobjp "The performer may… by innerthought
The composer has always been able to specify how they want their music played. Always. Lets just make music mechanical and lifeless. Sorry, but that is a sad day. Music is not about dynamics. It isn't about tempo or anything that the composer puts on paper. Or in a sound file. The day that we value a sound file over a live performance is a sad day. I have seen composers overmark their scores. They put some kind of marks on almost every note in an attempt to show just how they want the music played. Almost obliterating the music underneath. Fun fact: If I write a piece for orchestra, who is performing it live? Not me. No matter how I mark the music there is no way to be sure it will be played the way I want. No composer is a professional musician on every instrument in the orchestra. Or a professional conductor.
It's bad enough that we tend to just put on a recording rather that go to a life performance. Who cares?
Consider the opening 4 notes of the 5th symphony. 4 notes. Are they a pickup? Are they fast? Are they downbeats? Beethoven didn't specify exactly how he wanted them played. As a result there are several different ways those notes have been played. Thus enriching our musical experience. It's bad enough that our education system wants to take the arts out of schools. Ask yourself where we will end up without music and art. They are important to how our brains function. Creativity and expression.
Sorry for the rant. But man....
In reply to The composer has always been… by bobjp
@bobjp: "Beethoven didn't specify exactly how he wanted them played. As a result there are several different ways those notes have been played. Thus enriching our musical experience."
-- It is not necessarilly an enrichment of musical experience, it is just Beethoven's providing more of a leeway for musicians in this particular place. There are instances where a composer might simply indicate a fermata, while in others, they may specify precise note values. Both approaches are valid. Excessive freedom for musicians doesn't always result in enriched music, nor does rigid guidance from a composer necessarily produce hollow music. Furthermore, performers always have the freedom to interpret a piece as they see fit, even if it diverges from the composer's original intent. However, it's advantageous for contemporary composers to have tools like MuseScore, enabling them to convey their desired musical nuances more precisely than composers of earlier eras.
"It's bad enough that our education system wants to take the arts out of schools."
-- You may need to specify the country of the education system you have in mind. I don't have a slightest sense that the educational system in my country is taking the arts out of schools.
In reply to "Beethoven didn't specify… by innerthought
"However, it's advantageous for contemporary composers to have tools like MuseScore, enabling them to convey their desired musical nuances more precisely than composers of earlier eras."
I'm not so sure. Composers have always been able to mark up their scores the same way, whether on paper or in software. Notation software is intended to produce......notation. Composers who aren't interested in live performance don't use notation software as much as they may go right to a DAW.
In many places in the US there has been no music education in public schools for decades. When I was growing up in California, there was instrumental music available in grades 5 through 12. As well as some general music. In 1973, I got a teaching credential to teach music in public schools. That year a state wide referendum passed that cut property taxes. These taxes funded music in schools. With the funding gone music disappeared and there where no jobs for me. There was still a little secondary school music. But no district was going to hire someone with no experience in secondary school. STEM is the popular acronym for what is important in education now. "Science, Technology, Engineering, Math". Only in the last few years has there been a movement to add "Arts" to make it STEAM. Not a lot of success, so far.
In reply to "However, it's advantageous… by bobjp
@bobjp:
-- Well, this is, of course, a very sad thing to hear. Especially, given the fact that it was proven by scientists that being exposed to hearing live classical music increases children's mental and creative abilities. Let's hope, though, that one day they will still go from STEM to STEAM.
"The composer has always been able to specify how they want their music played. Always."
-- So how have they been specifying such cases like the one I am talking about here: when the note or a group of notes should be played not as loud as in 'mf', yet not as quiet as in 'mp'?
In reply to @bobjp: -- Well, this is, of… by innerthought
In performance, the change from mp to mf is already small enough that only a VERY experienced listener can hear it. Off the top of my head, I don't recall ever having seen someone indicating that change. Changing from f to ff, and then to fff is a thing (similarly the other way, and at the other end), but that is going to be the composer's guideline on how quickly to cresc. from 'loud' to 'as loud as you can play'.
The in-between volumes are meaningful only in terms of digital music, in terms of DAWs and synthesizers. Not in terms of notation to be given to musicians for them to play. And, to be honest, I'm doubtful that they are meaningful there either. Most listeners (even "overwhelmingly most listeners") simply won't be able to discern any difference.
In reply to In performance, the change… by TheHutch
@TheHutch:
I see. Thank you for this input.
"The in-between volumes are meaningful only in terms of digital music, in terms of DAWs and synthesizers. Not in terms of notation to be given to musicians for them to play"
-- Could you, please, go a bit deeper into this matter and elaborate some more about why it's significant only in the context of digital music and DAWs? If, as you mentioned, a change from 'mp' to 'mf' in live performance is already subtle and discernible only to very experienced listeners, why does it become such a sensitive issue in digital music, considering that digital music aims to approximate live performance sounds?
In reply to @TheHutch: I see. Thank you… by innerthought
I did not intend to say that it's actually meaningful in DAWs either; I don't believe it to be. It's just that in a DAW or a synthesizer, a performer can set volume explicitly to any digitally-possible amount. The performer can set volume to exactly 63 (whatever that number happens to mean) and then change it to 67, but the audience (and, I suspect, in most cases, the performer) will not hear any difference there.
In notation, you can only set it to discrete units (the traditional f, mf, mp, p etc. In performance the actual volumes that are played are completely subjective for a given performer/conductor. And these discrete differences are such that performers and audiences can discern them. Occasionally only just barely.
Let's put it this way: if I were to create an extended piece, say 100-200 measures long and I were to randomly have the volume switch between mf and mp, most listeners (and I include me and you) would not be able to tell when it changed reliably. Assuming that to be so, using something halfway between mf and mp (or between any other consecutive pair) is just a waste of time.
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference." [Does anyone recognize where I picked up that quote? I can't remember :-) ]
In reply to I did not intend to say that… by TheHutch
@TheHutch:
"I did not intend to say that it's actually meaningful in DAWs either; I don't believe it to be. It's just that in a DAW or a synthesizer, a performer can set volume explicitly to any digitally-possible amount."
-- Thank you for this reply. But, honestly, I am quite puzzled now. I mean, you are not the only who have said to me similar things, but I do run into this problem quite often. I have many files that I created back in those times when only MS3 was available. Later, when MS4 was introduced, I trasferred them all into MS4 and discovered that many notes started sounding not as loud as they did before. I wasn't the only one who noticed that. In fact, many of my family members who have little to do with music, but had heard me files earlier, also noticed that.
Then, when I started changing the dynamics of those notes - just one "notch" down, like from 'mf' to 'mp', they would sound then way too quiet. In fact, I keep running into this problem even now, when I am using exclusively MS4 for creating and editing files. Almost with each update of Muse Sounds or each update of the nightly build I do discover that some notes suddenly lose their intensity, but changing the dynamics would make things even worse.
In reply to @TheHutch: "I did not intend… by innerthought
To back up just a minute.
"-- So how have they been specifying such cases like the one I am talking about here: when the note or a group of notes should be played not as loud as in 'mf', yet not as quiet as in 'mp'?"
In notation there are modifiers such as "Piu" and "Meno". Piu meaning "more" and Meno meaning "less".
So "piu mf" would mean "more mf" or slightly quieter that mf.
And "meno mp" would mean "less mp" or slightly louder than mp.
In reply to To back up just a minute. "-… by bobjp
I'll go with this suggestion. Anything more seems like overkill.
And in live performance, dynamics are all relative, anyway. You can't direct a real performer to "change your playback velocity from 67 to 69, but don't go as far as 71."
In reply to I'll go with this suggestion… by mikey12045
@mikey12045:
"in live performance, dynamics are all relative, anyway"
-- Well, then I suppose I am being a bit cranky here about the playback. Yes, I understand that MuseScore is primarily notation software and all that, but nobody compelled the developers to include the playback feature. And now that this feature has been added and even further developed in MS4, I believe I have some grounds for being particular about it. Moreover, it's not merely a whim - my files do occasionally, after updates, stop sounding the way they did before.
In reply to To back up just a minute. "-… by bobjp
@bobjp:
"In notation there are modifiers such as "Piu" and "Meno". Piu meaning "more" and Meno meaning "less"."
-- WOW! I didn't know that. Thank you very much for telling me this.
In reply to @bobjp: "In notation there… by innerthought
I don't think they have any playback consequences. Am I mistaken???
In reply to I don't think they have any… by TheHutch
I never said they did.