How do you make the metronome go at semiquaver beats?
I've got a Score of Mozart's Turkish March and wanted the metronome to go at semiquaver intervals.
Is this possible?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Turkish Rondo - V1 - Classical Term 3.mscz | 39.71 KB |
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
In the tempo palette there is a semi-quaver = 80 tempo. Add this to the score where you want that tempo and change the 80 to the appropriate number and the tempo will be what you want. If it's the initial tempo you want to change, delete the initial tempo and insert the one from the palette.
If you want the metronome sound on 16th, you need a time signature that is based on 16th
In reply to If you want the metronome… by Jojo-Schmitz
Having the metrononome option to beat arbitrary sub-beats is not without appeal ("a one-and-a-two-and ...").
In reply to Having the metrononome… by [DELETED] 1831606
This kind of sub-beat option for the metronome ("one-and-two-and…" or "one-e-and-a-two-e-and-a…") is what I came here looking for. Sad to see that a month ago, it was still just "not without appeal."
As suggested elsewhere, I could always add a "click track" staff… bleh.
In reply to This kind of sub-beat option… by dland
The majority of people who contribute to MuseScore are volunteers, not paid staff. Included in these people are several talented musicians including some professional musicians of some repute, but no superstars. Of the contributors, none have felt the need to add this option to the metronome.
Currently, if the tempo is dotted quarter = 60 or higher, it ticks on the dotted quarter beat. When this tempo is under 60, it ticks on the 8th note. This is a somewhat arbitrary tempo but that is the current situation. As you noted, the click track is a decent workaround and gives you all of the flexibility you would ever want. It's only one more key press to mute it.
In reply to The majority of people who… by mike320
I'm sorry to interfere but your comment that "The majority of people who contribute to MuseScore are volunteers...(and) none have felt the need to add this option to the metronome." has no real relevance to this discussion.
Why create an open forum if only the opinions of the contributors matter? Just discuss among yourselves in Slack or whatever. And if I was the "owner" of this project, I also wouldn't want to get help from volunteers who just want their own ideas implemented.
The correct way to build any application, in theory, should be to gather feedback from actual users (customers if the app is not free), then rank these ideas by how many people want them. That's the demand side. The you would compare that against the difficulty / time required to implement it (the supply side). Then the developers can decide whether it is worth building or not.
It doesn't seem we have a system to rank ideas (like uservoice.com), So the max that you can do, @Rtetyellow, is to create a post in the Feature Request Sub forum: https://musescore.org/en/forum/7
And yes, I do want this feature and I think it is very important.
In reply to I'm sorry to interfere but… by Jubinell Youtube
MuseScore is an open source project meaning that anyone can contribute to the development. See here https://musescore.org/en/development for how you can contribute to the development. Thus, the "max that you can do" is not to just post in the forum, but rather to undertake the development of features yourself if you think they are particularly important to you.
Meanwhile, close control of a metronome track can be achieved by adding a separate instrument - e.g. woodblock - that can be made to click at whatever subdivision you choose and also to emphasise whichever click you choose.
In reply to I'm sorry to interfere but… by Jubinell Youtube
The fact that the majority of the contributors are volunteers has everything to do with it as the community is the "owner" of the notation software project.
Sure there is an in-house paid team contributing as well, and we leave the release process to them both out of a convenience as out of a process point of view.
And there is a method of ranking these ideas by their request, as is tracked by the issue tracker. But there is also no obligation to implement them in that order. And yes, this forum is included in that feedback gathering as well.
But any contributor here is also "the developers" in your example; and so any of them is entitled to making the call "whether it is worth building or not" for themselves. And yes, sometimes that call will be made by someone from the inhouse team and then someone on their payroll will implement that.
But for me, for example, as long as nobody is paying for my contribution time (nor do they have to), that does factor into the weighing of whether "it is worth implementing" or not.
And in that respect, that statement has very much a relevance to the discussion and as to the "why isn't this here yet?" question.
In reply to The fact that the majority… by jeetee
When we see the massive amount of work that has been done for version 4 by the paid development team, is it really still the case that we can say the majority of code comes from volunteers ?
I have no idea, this is a genuine question
In reply to When we see the massive… by frfancha
The majority of the contributors are volunteers.
The majority of the code comes from a minority of contributors, and indeed, those are naturally the paid staff from the Muse Group.
Before that the majority of code also came from internal staff (namely Werner/lasconic).