Are sfp and mfp interchange-able?
I'm transcribing a String Serenade (Reinecke) that calls for mfp dynamics. This does not appear to be an option: can sfp be used instead? The score I'm transcribing can be found here:
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=…
Comments
Well, for display you can certainly take the sfp and change the s to an m. No idea what that does playback wise
In reply to Well, for display you can… by Jojo-Schmitz
Interesting. sfp has a default velocity of 112 and a velocity change of -47 (from the 'f' to the 'p', I assume). When I change the 's' to an 'm', velocity stays at 112, and velocity change went to zero to 0.
Before I start going this route, it's important to consider the following: 'sfp' appears to signify a sforzato immediately followed by a piano, and 'mfp' is mezzoforte followed by piano: this suggests a difference in performance dynamics, where the first has more of an accented affect, whilst 'mfp' has less of an accent, but rather just a drop-off.
I'm guessing that I could achieve 'mfp' with a decres. hairpin modified with either an 'ease-out' or an 'exponential' velocity method. Not sure on how these two methods differ, or if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
In reply to Interesting. sfp has a… by robynsveil
or set the velocity change to that of piano
Maybe we should add it to the dynamics palette
In reply to or set the velocity change… by Jojo-Schmitz
This is rare. I don't think it belongs in even the advanced palette, perhaps the master palette.
In reply to Interesting. sfp has a… by robynsveil
I would use the fp symbol and add the m before the f using ctrl+alt+m I would then change the velocity to 80 and the velocity offset to -31 (It'll be a little soft, perhaps -27 is better). You can then ctrl+shift+drag the symbol to a custom palette for later use.
Thank you for your replies, Jojo and Mike. I will do as you suggest, Mike. I am interested in playback responding to dynamics: this might be closest to what Reinecke had intended.
ETA: Worked a treat... exactly as expected. Thank you, Mike.
S4Strings-01Marcia_b.mscz
I'm not sure if this is in keeping with the philosophy of the MuseScore site, but I don't consider what I've uploaded as final versions, particularly as I would like them to reflect what I've learned about MuseScore itself and also as I discover errors or better ways to perform the task, the desire to fix becomes overwhelming.
In reply to Thank you for your replies,… by robynsveil
Score uploaded in the forum with requests for help are not considered by anyone to be final versions. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken. The only places I would expect to find a final version are in the Made with MuseScore forum and on musescore.com.
In reply to Score uploaded in the forum… by mike320
I'm guessing by "requests for help", you mean evaluation as to how close to a proper performance the piece appears to sound when played - when assessing a transcribed piece, of course, since a new piece wouldn't necessarily have a reference interpretation in the wild. I didn't understand that, and was posting my WIPs on "My Scores" section. I suppose a transcription should approach fidelity fairly closely to the original score, no mean feat.
I will do as suggested: submit WIPs to forums and when the consensus appears to be that things appear right, post it then. Thank you for this suggestion.
In reply to I'm guessing by "requests… by robynsveil
I don't think you understand that there are two websites. musescore.org, which is here. People talk about the program, make suggestions to improve it and ask for help like you did in this thread. There is also musescore.com where you post your score with the expectation that others will see it, download it comment on it and so forth.
On the musescore.com site, if you consider the piece a work in progress, it's common to put (WIP) at the end of the title so people realize it is not yet finished. This implies that you welcome feedback as to how it could be improved to this point and suggestions on how to proceed might even be considered.
In reply to I don't think you understand… by mike320
Thank you for that clarification: very helpful! I did realise there were two sites, but their roles were unclear.