Two comprehension questions
From time to time I update the one or other part in the German handbook.
In the chapter "Ties" there is the following phrase (fragment: add tied notes/a tied chord in note input note):
"...Note: Step 2 is not required if the selected note lies behind the "leading edge" of the score..."
(https://musescore.org/en/handbook/tie#add-tied-notes-note-input-mode)
I've no clue concerning the meaning of "leading edge". Could someone explain it with other words?
In the chapter "time signatures" there's also a sentence, where I'm not sure what's meant:
"...Additive (or composite) time signatures are used to indicate a more complex pattern of measure note-division..."
(https://musescore.org/en/handbook/time-signature#additive-meters)
What is exactly the meaning of a "measure note-division" in this context?
Thanks for clarification ;-)
Comments
I don't get the meaning either. Both terms had been introduced by geetar (subtle hint as to whom should answer here ;-))
See https://musescore.org/de/node/36131/revisions/view/169151/184971 and https://musescore.org/en/node/35941/revisions/view/161981/164646
This is not meant to beat up someone, just an investigation and a question which came up in the German forum, see https://musescore.org/de/node/139056 and https://musescore.org/de/node/126746#comment-588511
In reply to I don't get the meaning by Jojo-Schmitz
"Measure note-division" = "note division within a measure" or "division of notes within a measure".
"Leading Edge" refers to the front edge of the score that is advancing as you add notes to it. If you add a tie at the front edge you have to specify the note duration of the next chord. If you navigate backwards and use the same "add tie" command to a chord (in the middle of the score), MS simply adds the notes to the next chord and ties them.
In reply to "Measure note-division" = by geetar
First: Thank's for response.
I think, the meaning of "Measure note-division" it's clear for me now.
But excuse my limited English vocabulary: You say, "behind the leading edge" means if you add a tie at the front edge (foolproof ;-):at the end of the notes, you've inputted (??)) of a score, you have to specify the note duration of the next note/chord.
I'm not sure, but shouldn't be written the sentence: "Note: Step 2 is not required if the selected note lies __before__ the "leading edge" of the score. In this case, a tied chord is generated equal to the duration of the next note in the score." ?
For me it's not really clear/obviously the explanation/description in this part (and maybe for the one or other non native English speaker too).
(btw.: I would have send you a personal message, but it seems you've disabled it in your profile ;)
I hope I'm not too bigoted ;-)
In reply to First: Thank's for by kuwitt
I personally don't think of it it as there being a step that is optional in one case but not the other. i think of it as two slightly different behaviors. When you are first entering notes left to right (at the "leading edge", I guess), there is nothing already there, so of course you need to select the duration, and that is the duration that gets used - meaning it is what you want, every time, no doubt about it. If you are going back and entering ties after entering notes, then there is a chord (possibly of a single note) already there at the end of the tie, so that duration gets used. That may or may not be what you actually wanted. Maybe you wanted to add a note to the existing chord, maybe you actually wanted to replace it with a new note of different duration than what was there before. So it's not exactly accurate to imply that somehow you are saved a step. MuseScore has a choice to make, and it simply chooses to use the existing duration whereas it could have been designed to replace the previous chord with a new one of the selected duration. Either way it's what you want some times, not other times.
Not that you want to explain it that way, but I think understanding this might help you figure out how you *do* want to explain it.
In reply to I personally don't think of by Marc Sabatella
Actually I still don't understand the measure note division thing. I believe it ought to be improved in the English version (I am born a German speaker but have spent 20 plus years in the US so I certainly should have no problem with it).
I'll be happy to make suggestions once I understand what it means.
The tie issue is not that important because it is obvious. When a note is already there to tie to its duration will be used, otherwise you have to enter it. The only complication may be that if you are in the middle of the score and there is no note with the same pitch MS refuses to enter a tie, but this will also be obvious when encountered. (Slurs behave the same way BTW).
In reply to Actually I still don't by azumbrunn
I've rephrased the relevant paragraphs in "Ties" and "Time signature". Hopefully it's clearer now.
In reply to I've rephrased the relevant by geetar
The note in the chapter "ties" is good comprehensible.
But I'm fighting still a little bit with the part of "additive meters" to find a good description. I don't find a German equivalent for imperfect meter (maybe also of my limited music theory knowledge in this special topic). The German Wikipedia entry isn't really helpful hereof.
Is there a difference between "imperfect meter" and "irregular/asymmetrical meter" or could I use that as synonym?
In reply to The note in the chapter by kuwitt
Actually, I disagree with the use of the phrase 'imperfect meter' in this context. Imperfect meter has two distinct meanings in early music, and neither of them apply here. From HDM2e: "The modus perfectus and imperfectus of mensural notation are entirely different fron the modus perfectus and imperfectus of the 13th century theory of rhythmic modes. In the former, the terms indicate the ternary or binary value of the longa (L=3 beats or 2 beats); in the latter they refer to the final note in the pattern of a mode...."
Obviously, that is not what this section on composite time signatures is discussing. IMO that phrase should indeed be changed to read 'irregular or asymmetrical meters' in the English handbook.
In reply to Actually, I disagree with the by Recorder485
The Essential Dictionary of Music Notation (Gerou/Lusk), pp. 94-95.
In reply to The Essential Dictionary of by geetar
When it's correct to use equal the terms "imperfect meter" and "odd meter" (like indicated in your link), than it would be okay for me.
In reply to The Essential Dictionary of by geetar
'Time Signature' in New Oxford (Denis Arnold, Ed., OUP, Oxford, 1983 rev 2000), p. 1820:
In reply to 'Time Signature' in New by Recorder485
If there's no clarity for a correct definition or the sources interfere, maybe it's better to leave out this note? I'm not sure whether it's better to use "irregular meter" or "odd meter" (in the German translation).
Or it should used a similar explanation to the English wikipedia entry (forgive my nonseriuos sources ;):
"...Additive meters have a pattern of beats that subdivide into smaller, irregular groups. Such meters are sometimes called imperfect, in contrast to perfect meters, in which the bar is first divided into equal units..."
(Interesting: This definition is using as well as the term "irregular" and "imperfect" too).
I don't hope I'm too fussy (because I'm sure there are more important things to do in MuseScore). But I think, it would be better, if there were not to much differences between the documentation in the several languages.
In reply to If there's no clarity for a by kuwitt
You are not at all being 'fussy'; in translation, things like this are extremely important. I do French-to-English translations, and I can tell anyone who wants to know that ambiguity in the original text is the main reason translators ought to be paid more than they are!
I took at look at that Wikipedia article you cited, and the edit-history and 'talk' pages associated with it are, to put it mildly, a hotbed of controversy. Apparently, people have very strong opinions on how time signatures should be described or explained. ;o)
Back to MuseScore: We appear to be in the midst of what lawyers often call a 'citation war': The defense cites judge A; the crown attorney cites judge B. (And the judge on the bench shakes his head, grimaces, cusses thrice, and goes with his gut feeling...then he concocts a logical argument to back up his opinion. Snork.)
But the fact is, some sources are more reliable than others. The reference to 'imperfect' meters given in the 'Additive Meters' section of the Wikipedia article is from Gardner Read (footnote 13) , which is a recognised source but is no longer considered a definitive one. Geetar has cited Gerou and Lusk, which is a sort of 'Cliff Notes' booklet on music notation; handy for students but not in any sense an authoritative source. I have cited both the Harvard Dictionary of Music and the New Oxford Companion to Music, and although neither of those works is exempt from error (I have written corrections of errors for Oxford and Grove in the past), those two sources are generally considered to be more reliable than most of the other general music reference works available. Their editorial policies are quite stingent, and they do their due diligence in revising their editions. While neither of those works is in any sense exhaustive, they are both highly respected sources for what they do contain.
My main point here is that the term 'imperfect' already has two conflicting meanings in early music, and that adding yet another one by 'misusing' that word in the MuseScore handbook would add to the confusion rather than clarify matters. There are two perfectly adequate and descriptive terms in English for metres of this sort--'irregular' and 'asymmetrical'--and they are recognised and used in both Harvard and Oxford. Unless there is an obvious need to use the word 'imperfect' in conjunction with this subject--and I don't see one from where I sit--I believe it would be more responsible for MuseScore to use one (or both) of the more generally recognised terms. MuseScore is 'a contender,' as Tennessee Williams might have said; as such, it has a responsibility to live up to the responsibilities inherent to that status. What MuseScore publishes in the Handbook will have a permanent effect on the musical world, so it behooves us all to be very careful about what we write.
In reply to You are not at all being by Recorder485
If the question is, what is the best 21st century US English term to use for time signatures that are not multiples of 2 or 3, then I can confirm "irregular" is definitely more appropriate than "imperfect" (not 100% sure I am understanding the context correctly). I'd also corroborate the suggestion that Harvard, Oxford, or Grove are probably better sources to refer to for this sort of thing than Read or Gerou/Lusk. My sense is that Read was considered an authoritative if somewhat quirky source in its day but it no longer reflects current practice; Gerou/Lusk isn't nearly scholarly enough to turn to in cases where it conflicts with more established sources.
In reply to If the question is, what is by Marc Sabatella
I think it is worth considering that the nomenclature in this area (and indeed in much of musical terminology) has been a hopeless muddle for centuries now. Long debates about "irregular", "imperfect" or "compound" really do become a fight with windmills. (Personally I like neither the term "imperfect" nor "irregular": They both imply inferiority when in fact the opposite is more likely.)
No to mention that the terminologies in the different languages do not match each other. (On the whole the German terminology stands out for clarity and ease on the memory IMHO--in spite of the b/h muddle.)
We'll just have to deal with the lack of clarity and precision we have inherited. (After all there are always the time signatures themselves, each of which is unequivocal.) If someone re-invented notation today they would come up with a considerably simpler and easier to read system.
If you look at it from a strictly logical point of view all meters with more than 3 parts in them (i.e. the figure on top is larger than 3) are "compound": They are subdivided: 4/4 is 2+2 (as evidenced by the small accent on beat 3), 6/8 is 3+3 (more rarely 2+2+2), 5/4 is 2+3 or 3+2, 7/8 is 3+2+2 or permutations thereof etc. (Composers often indicate by the beaming how the subdivision is to be understood, hence maybe the preference for quavers as the counting unit in these more complex cases.)
In reply to I think it is worth by azumbrunn
I do agree that the use of the word 'imperfect' has been confusing for centuries; that is the reason I object to its use here. We may not be able to fix the problem we have inherited, as you put it, but we can at least refrain from making it worse. ;o)
I'm not sure I get your objection to 'irregular'; in English there is no connotation of inferiority that goes along with this word in this context. A metre can be regular or irregular, symmetric or asymmetric. There is no 'judgement' as to its musical merit implied by either usage.
In reply to I do agree that the use of by Recorder485
I guess in some vague colloquial sense I could see how the word "irregular" might have a negative connotation, but this is a specific context that demands correct language. It's similarly perhaps a bit unfortunate that we use terms like "weak" beats, or that we talk about 1st and 2nd clarinets as if that is a value judgement, but I don't make the rules :-)
Bottom line: yes, any time signature with a numerator greater than 3 is generally subdivided into groups of 2 and 3. The "regular" case is where subdivisions are all of the same length - all groups of 2 as in 4/4 subdivided into 2+2, or all 3 as in 6/8 subdivided into 3+3. If the subdivision involves mixed groupings - some 2 and some 3 as in 7/4 subdivided into 2+2+3 - then the common/correct term in 21st century US English is "irregular", and that type of usage for something that does not follow the most simple / common pattern is also pretty well understood from other contexts as well.
In reply to I guess in some vague by Marc Sabatella
My main point was that it is easy (and pointless IMHO) to get into terminology "wars" about these things. Categorizing these meters in detail does not really serve that important a purpose since there aren't all that many that are at all relevant.
BTW your comparison examples aren't all that pertinent: A second clarinet/violin etc. part is easier to play than the first in 999 out of 1000 examples, a hierarchy of practicality though not of importance to the overall composition. And a weak beat is produced by doing a weak bang on the drum or a soft touch on the piano etc. "Weak" is a physically correct nomenclature for beats.
In reply to My main point was that it is by azumbrunn
I'll agree that 'wars' (my fault for bringing that word into this thread) are not useful, but I'll respectfully disagree that it is pointless to conduct a discussion about the best word to describe something in a work as important as the MuseScore Handbook.
I think there is a danger of contempt-through-familiarity for those of us who contribute regularly to this forum and participate in the development of the program, at whatever level. Because we are so close to the evolution of the program and its documentation, we may too easily lose sight of MuseScore's importance in the musical world of the 21st century. It is no longer just a neat little open-source alternative to the 'high-priced spread', it has evolved one of the top three score-writing programs in the world today. It is easy for us to forget that, to the 'outside world'--many of whom are young, developing musicians with little formal training or education in music--what MuseScore says or does is equivalent to 'musical law,' and will thus have a permanent effect on the development of music notation in the future.
'With great power comes great responsibility.' No, I am not just quoting a fictional character--Spiderman's Uncle Ben--that sentiment goes back to at least 1817, when British MP William Lamb said, 'The possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.' Churchill repeated the thought in 1906 when he said, 'Where there is great power there is great responsibility'. In fact, it is a dictum of history that we would do well to remember.
MuseScore has evolved to the point where it is an 'official' part of the musical world. For those of us who contribute to its documentation or developement, failing to recognise that would be an ethical breach of the first order.
This discussion over 'imperfect' versus 'irregular' or 'asymmetrical' is important for the long-term, especially since the English version of the Handbook is used as the basis for worldwide translations into other languages.
It seems to me we need to start setting standards: If Musescore as a scorewriter is under obligation to teach music then the analog must be true for everybody else:
Suppliers of pocket calculators are in charge of people's education in arithmetic.
Developers of word processor are obliged to teach grammar and vocabulary in their handbooks. And maybe somewhere towards the end of this century this will be how it will be done.
Really? It is true that Musescore is a great screenwriter. I have no experience with other screenwriters so I can't confirm your ranking but it is easy to learn, easy to use, gives beautiful results with relatively little effort and has a lot of improvements in the works for the not too distant future. But I disagree with taking on responsibilities beyond teaching the software and being responsive to user needs and user problems (and Musescore is doing a superb job in all these areas!). Teaching music is a hands on job. Very few people, even very few people of great talent can learn it from books. It just is beyond what can be done by a team who develop software.
I am all for using correct language. But in the case of time signatures (which is the topic as far as Musescore is concerned) it suffices to list them. Even in conversation with fellow musicians I never use these terms. They are one analytical level above what a practitioner needs. Sometimes I suspect that the terms were invented to make the subject appear more complex than it really is. But some things--thank God--are simple. So why debate terms we don't need and on which there is little agreement (when people do not follow the relevant authorities those authorities become automatically less relevant)?
P.S. 1: This is not true in all situations: To teach the use of chord symbols you need to use the appropriate chord names for example (though most people who use them come with the knowledge of course).
P.S. 2: I recommend avoiding comparisons to Churchill. People might think it a bit overreaching.
In reply to It seems to me we need to by azumbrunn
Wrong conclusion, Suppliers of pocket calculators and Developers of word processor are (when they reach a certain size and credibility, so that they are being used in education) obliged to use the correct terms in their handbooks.
In reply to Wrong conclusion, Suppliers by Jojo-Schmitz
The term irregular comes from the dance. A piece with a regular measure can be danced with the same repeated steps, a piece with a irregular measure needs at least two different ways to move (not regular then).
And typically irregular pieces are more interesting to dance, therefore there is certainly no connotation of inferiority for the dancer in the term irregular.
In reply to It seems to me we need to by azumbrunn
Re: your P.S. 2: A valid point. I didn't mean to sound pompous by quoting Churchil, but I felt the serious nature of this discussion merited something a bit more authoritative than quoting Spidey's Uncle Ben. Thus I did a little research to track down the original quote, and it turned out that Churchill was one of the sources. Research of that sort is what I do all day long when transcribing 300-year-old music, so it seems that my work habits got the better of common sense. ;o) Please accept my apology.
I agree that MuseScore cannot--and should not--try to teach music; but it is not possible to teach people how to understand and run the program without using the proper musical vocabulary. In general, MuseScore does a very good job of this. I have a much better-than-average musical vocabulary and even I have learned new terms from MuseScore. In that this is what I do professionally I am capable of doing the historical research to verify whether a particular usage is proper and unambiguous--I do this even for major works such as Oxford and Grove, if I have any doubts about what they've published--but many younger MuseScore users with less formal training either cannot do this, or--more to the point--won't even think to try. They will just take whatever 'we' say as Holy Writ, handed down from On High. That is why I insist on us being so careful about what we write in the Handbook.
You are almost certainly aware of the rather poor reputation for accuracy that Wikipedia has earned among scholars over the years since it has worked its way up to being the first 'hit' on 95% of Google searches. A case in point: A number of years ago I edited a Wikipedia article on accidentals to include an explanation of the older 'accidental-per-note' rule (as opposed to the 'accidental-per-measure' rule) which was used in many manuscripts and printed editions prior to the late 1600s. At the time I edited that article, it contained a flat statement that an accidental is valid for the entire measure in which it first appears. This was misleading, as it did not take into account the earlier practise that grew out of unmeasured medieval and early renaissance notation, so I attempted to fix it.
Shortly after I did that, another Wikipedia contributor reverted my edit because she'd never been taught that in her high-school music class, and she appeared highly insulted that I had changed 'her' article. I refrained from getting into a flame war and re-reverting her changes (I had better things to do that week, I suppose), but the article has since been revised by someone else, and now contains essentially the same information I had added, but with the erroneous statement that the 'accidental-per-measure' rule did not come into general use until the late 19th century (in fact, it became current practise in most parts of Europe starting in the mid 1700s).
Because of its general nature--and especially because of its ubiquitous presence at the top of the list on almost every search run through Google--Wikipedia has become too big for any one person to 'fix'. It is what it is, and we are stuck with it. Even if there were a thousand dedicated scholars who did nothing but correct errors in its pages during every one of their waking hours, there would still be ten thousand other 'editors' messing things up because they thought they knew more than they do.
MuseScore, OTOH, is big enough to be authoritative, but still small enough to be controlled so that the authority it wields--by virtue of its position as one of the top three scorewriters available--is not based on erroneous information. I would not like to see what has happened to Wikipedia happen to MuseScore.
In reply to Re: your P.S. 2: A valid by Recorder485
Again, discipline in terminology is admirable and necessary though always hard to maintain, not just in music. I know exactly how you feel because as a non native English speaker I feel the same way every time I see someone use "who" vs. "whom" by random guess.
However this was not my main point. In order to learn entering or editing time signatures in Musescore you don't need any of this . Everybody who is familiar with the 3 or 4 most common time signatures can easily learn how to do it. Give some examples of uncommon or custom time signatures at the end and you are done. People who know the theory will understand and people who don't won't use these more uncommon (but not really more complicated) time signatures anyway. Better not to load up the text with words which people may or may not understand and which need to be defined. Unless it is unavoidable. I hope I have said it more clearly now.
I think time signatures are probably easiest to understand of all elements of notation.
In reply to Again, discipline in by azumbrunn
Agreed on all points. I think I said a while back in this discussion that I didn't insist on any particular adjective, I only objected to the specific one that had been used and wanted to suggest some better alternatives. If, as you say, there is no actual need to state or describe something in a handbook, that makes it a clear case of 'less is more'. :)
BTW, it turns out that geetar quietly revised the article again (four days ago) to remove the disputed word. He has rephrased things quite nicely so that a descriptive word for the class of meter is no longer needed.
In reply to Agreed on all points. I think by Recorder485
Man, the devil sure is in the detail! This is why the graphical piano-roll (vertical=pitch, horizontal=time, now get on with it) was immediately dominant in 90% of computer music software. These old fashioned scores are a (very) charming antiquity, nothing more, so there's no point getting all steamed up. They go with having a dry sherry, then taking the Bentley down to the golf course to knock a ball around with your hickory clubs!
This is not the end of this thread. Nor is it the beginning of the end... But it is (perhaps) the end of the beginning.