Augmentation dot position of tablature note
1. Open attached score (produced in 1.2).
2. Right-click stave.
3. 'Stave Properties...'.
4. Change 'Type:' to 'Tab'.
5. 'OK'.
Result: The position of the augmentation dot doesn't match the original published score.
Using MuseScore 2.0 Nightly Build (49801cc) - Mac 10.7.5.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Augmentation dot position of tablature note.mscz | 1.51 KB |
| Augmentation dot position of tablature note (MuseScore).pdf | 10.29 KB |
| Augmentation dot position of tablature note (Original).png | 48.76 KB |
Comments
I posted here (instead of the Issue Tracker), because I don't know if the report is valid, or if there's enough information.
In this post, there's a clearer 'Original' image.
Please see my reply to this post of yours .
There is no 'standard' for TAB's: take two scores from two different sources and you'll find noticeable differences. Emulating or giving parameters enough for replicating all of them would make the TAB configuration dlg box impossibly complex; one has to choose.
Thanks,
M.
P.S.: In this specific case, the position of the dot in the source is questionable: if the standard for pitched staves is used, shoudn't the dot be above the line rather than below?
In reply to Please see my reply to this by Miwarre
Was there something that led you to choose where the dot is currently placed?
I'm starting to appreciate that like non-pitch percussion, notation can differ between all books for tablature (possibly even in the same one).
In reply to Was there something that led by chen lung
In an attempt to limit the proliferation of parameters and controls in the TAB configuration dlg box, I replicated in the "Stem style: Through staff" the same dot position used for "Stem position: Beside staff" (where the position options are much more limited).
There is one possible alternative: to replicate for "Through staff" the same layout and formatting used for regular 'pitched' staff. This would involve not only dots, but stems, beams and hooks (and perhaps other elements I don't recall at the moment).
Ideally, it would be nice to have parameters to control all those positions, but the resulting dlg box would be very hard to manage (and perhaps simply to understand).
Worth starting another 'poll'?
Thanks,
M.
In reply to In an attempt to limit the by Miwarre
What you describe is all sort-of new to me (might take a little time to understand), but there is something that makes me think that what currently exists wouldn't work in the future (or possibly now) - multi-voice tablature (one voice has dotted notes and another doesn't). I actually encountered it days ago, then I think it got mentioned in the hangout :).
In reply to What you describe is all by chen lung
Multi-voice will also be multi-stem by necessity. If there are several voices, each voice has its own set of stems; it is so in 'pitched' staves, it will be so in TAB's (when TAB's will support multi-voice).
So, the current arrangement should work also with several voices. Within limits, of course; if one tries to fit four continuous separate voices in a single staff, he will easily get a very crowded mess, regardless of the kind of the staff...!
To clarify what I described, think of an ordinary 'pitched' staff, adjust the number of lines and replace each note head with the fret number, leaving everything else as (and where) it is. Such a kind of TAB is actually used, I know of at least one sizeable tradition using it, the Spanish orchesta laudistica; it is a local tradition, true, but rather substantial.
Thanks,
M.
In reply to Multi-voice will also be by Miwarre
If we use the current arrangement in which dots are placed at the bottom of the stem (instead of next to the note), how will the user know what notes it applies to if there's a semibreve? Unless one voice of notes move away slightly to differentiate?