copying only the 1st voice
dear all,
could someone help me how to copy only the melody in the 1st voice from the guitar staff to the upper "1" staff?
thanks!
Also i would like to move down the lyrics a bit so they do no longer interfere with the bass tones.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| goedenavond_speelman-gt.mscz | 4.07 KB |
Comments
copy all voices and remove the one you don't want afterwards, by selecting one of it's notes, right-click-> Select -> More .. -> tick same staff and same voice -> OK, Del. Then do the same with the resulting rests and the lyrics
For the distance go to Menu -> Style -> Edit General Style ... -> Page and increase the Lyrics upper margin
See attached
Is that fat "em" supposed to be a chord? If so: it is not entered as such
In reply to copy all voices and remove by Jojo-Schmitz
sorry, double
Several ways to move lyrics. If you want them *all* moved, the easiest way is to go to stye / edit general style / page and adjust the Lyrics upper margin. Or, if you just want to move a few, select them (shift-drag is one way, or ctrl-click one at a time) then drag. As always when dragging multiple items in MuseScore, hold Ctrl before starting to make sure the whole selection moves together and that the click that starts the drag doesn't reset the selection to just the clicked item.
In reply to Several ways to move lyrics. by Marc Sabatella
thank you! it worked out perfectly :)
"Is that fat "em" supposed to be a chord? If so: it is not entered as such" yes it is. And no, it is not entered as such because MS does(or did?) not let me. I use staff text instead because it gives more freedom. The only drawback is that it has no flat symbol. So (eg.) bbm looks a bit funny but i can live with that :) (if it is very important i could change the font size for the 2nd b)
Cheers, thanks again!
In reply to thank you! it worked out by aeLiXihr
It takes away the capapability for these Chords to get transposed along with the Score.
In reply to It takes away the by Jojo-Schmitz
:o yeah, true...
But it is not important to me.
In reply to thank you! it worked out by aeLiXihr
The fact that chord symbols would have created the flat sign for you automatically is only only of *many* disadvantages of doing what you are doing. The sharp sign is another. Transposition is another. Another is that it won't export to MusicXML properly, or to any other format. Another is that you can set the default position, font, and size of chord symbols separately from that of ordinary text so they are automatically the way you want them. Another is that entering chord symnbols is much easier than ordinary text because you have shortcuts to move to the next note, beat, or measure. Another is that real chord symbols will playback with the various plugins that provide that (or if MuseScore provides that itself some day). Another is that the way you have it, no musician in the world is likely to recognize it as a chord symbol, so it won't be played properly by real musicians, either. It's hard to imagine any possible advantage to *not* using the chord symbol facility.
So what do you mean when you say MuseScore didn't let you enter it as a chord symbol? What went wrong when you tried? It could be a simple matter of you not entering symbols using the correct abbreviations according to the chord name style you had selected at the time. Some styles use "m" for minor, others "mi", others "-". So if you had a style loaded that expected "mi", it woudn't have been recognized, and you'd have had just plain text, and thus not gained many of the advantages of real chord symbols - buit it would still have let you enter the symbol, and you'd have been able to take advantageof the font/size/position defaults, the easier entry, and musicians would be much more likely to recognize them and play them correctly. So you'd still be much better off than you are now.
See Chord name in the handbook for more on using the chord symbol facility.
In reply to The fact that chord symbols by Marc Sabatella
Hi Mark,
thanks for the link!
I use shift+3 for sharp, looks fine.
I set the font, and size of chord symbols manually and copy them around so they are all the way i want them.
I am sure the chord tool has advantages but for me it is not doing.
In this particular exemple MuseScore does not not allow the lowercase "e". In general (as far as i found out) MS only caters for jazz style chord notation. (btw: have we not discussed this before?)
I do not understand this: "the way you have it, no musician in the world is likely to recognize it as a chord symbol"
Why not, how could you tell from a printed score which tool the chord symbols have been entered with, no problems here anyway...
All the best
In reply to Hi Mark, thanks for the by aeLiXihr
Shift-3 produces a sign that looks about as much like a sharp as a "b" looks like a flat sign - which is to say, they are similar enough that if you can't get the right symbol, it will be close enough to get your point across if not as clearly.
Yes, I realize you can, with a lot of extra work, resize and reposition text to be how you might want it for chord symbols, but my point is, that is unnecessary extra work. Using actual chord symbols gives this *automatically *.
As for using lower case letter for chords, it is definitely non-standard, if not *completely* unheard of. It's not a question of jazz using upper case versus everyone else using lower case. It is a case of virtually the entire world using upper case versus you and at best a handful of others using lower case.
That is part of what I meant about real musicians being confused by what you have. Between the non-standard capitalization, the non-standard position (chord symbols usually go above the staff, not below) and the incorrect flat and sharp signs, I would the *vast* majority of musicians would struggle to read your charts. Will they eventually figure it out? Sure, but why go so far out of your to make it more difficult? It just doesn't make any sense at all. You are working much harder than necessary, with the result being a chart that is much harder to read than necessary, plus you are destroying the possibility of the charts won't transposing, exporting, or playing back correctly. Oh, and copy/paste won't work either.
What possible advantage could there be in working so much harder to create much inferior charts?
In reply to Shift-3 produces a sign that by Marc Sabatella
"Using actual chord symbols gives this *automatically *.
As for using lower case letter for chords, it is definitely non-standard, if not *completely* unheard of.
It is a case of virtually the entire world using upper case versus you and at best a handful of others using lower case.
That is part of what I meant about real musicians being confused by what you have.
the non-standard position (chord symbols usually go above the staff, not below)"
that is untrue
but thanks anyway!
bye
In reply to "Using actual chord symbols by aeLiXihr
It's not untrue looking worldwide, but I recognize there may be a few isolated regions here and there where this practice is unfortunately still common. And I do agree that it would be nice if MuseScore supported it.
Still, I would maintain that you better off being one of the people pushing the musicians in your neck of the woods to come up to speed on the modern standards for this - it's an increasingly global world, and having a common notational language is increasingly important. In any case, capitalization aside, there are still all thise other disadvantages.
EDIT: and I should point out that I do the same in my neck of the woods. There are plenty of jazz musicians - myself, several years back, included - who hold on to now outmoded and ultimately confusing (to those not in on the particular "clique") ways of notating things. I've changed from how I have always done things in the past, in order to make my charts more universally understandable, and I encourage my associates to do the same. But again, I do think MuseScore should support lower case roots, and in fact, that is part of my proposal for enhanced chord symbol support that I've been pushing to get included in a future release.
In reply to It's not untrue looking by Marc Sabatella
i dunno if you realy do not know there are far more standards than the Jazz way, ignorant or you are just throwing mud.
Especialy worldwide it is untrue.
Anyway eg:
there are systems in which just "b" means(in Jazzstyle) Bbm and h means Bm
The spaniards and french use Do Re Mi in an ablsolute way
there are chords which one just cannot write in Jazz style(reasonably) because its meaning is violated eg. bm6 which in Jazz style would mean Bminor,mayor6 or others which one could but make little sence eg am2 which would be Am9omit7(or so)
or bm46 (b,f#,d,e,g ) or whatever...
And the figured bass way where the letter is the bas and the intevals are written as numbers.
I realy do not care if you find them all retarded, they serve a goal and they work better than a system intended for a different (bluesbased)style of music where all(?)chords are cummulated 3rd's.
Most people in this world speak chinese is it therefor the best language
Most people in this world use MS-windows is it therefor the best OS
The widest spread restaurant is McD is it also the best?
In the end i found a workaround that makes MS work realy fine here, what is your point in keeping nagging?
Have a good weekend!
luck & light, oNNo
In reply to i dunno if you realy do not by aeLiXihr
As I said, it is *not* just the "jazz way". It really is the *most common* way for *all* styles *worldwide*, even if certain styles in certain regions may still have certain musicians who still prefer to do things differently.
And it has nothing to do with which system is best, or other systems being "retarded" - it is a simple matter of wanting people to acknowledge and adopt developing standards in order to foster better communication. Whether one method is "better" than some other method or not is immaterial. As we used to say in one of my previous jobs, "standard is better than better".
That's why over the years mosty of the world has moved to the same five-line staves, the same method of shaping and positioning notes in order to represent pitch and rhythms, the same treble and bass clefs, the same diatonic key signatures , etc (even though yes, I know, there are always exceptions here and there where it mnight make sense to devaite from any of these standards). But there can be no denying that these thingsAt one time in history, *none* of these things were standard. People in different regions and in different musical traditions did things each their own way - and hence, their musics were unreadable outside their own pocket of the world. At some point, people gradually figured out there was value in moving to a single standard. This is also why much of the world has moved to the metric system (and yes, I wish the US would too), why our cell phones are starting to work on the same radio frequencies, and why, for that matter, we are able to conduct this discussion in English. But it's also why tempo markings and many other musical terms are in Italian. Some times, it just pays to go with the flow. Doesn't mean we all have to eat the same bad hamburgers - thjere is no value to saociety in our all eating the same food (good or bad). But there *is* value in our all being able to read the same music.
Anyhow, my point is not to nag. It is to educate, and to try to work toward a world in which people can read the same music by moving toward more global standards. I think of these as worthy goals. I would rather live in a world where my music is easily readable to more people, and more of other people's music is easily readable to me, than a world in which everyone insists on creating music not easily readable by others. Wouldn't you?
In reply to Shift-3 produces a sign that by Marc Sabatella
using lower case letters for minor chords is pretty common over here.
And indeed this is currently impossible with MuseScore.
However, this is a small price to pay, IMHO
In reply to lower case letters for minor chords is pretty common over here by Jojo-Schmitz
http://www.onno.cc/burdel1900-fuente.mp3 these musicians sound pretty real do not they?
In reply to http://www.onno.cc/burdel1900 by aeLiXihr
The link is not working fore me, unfortunately. But i have no doubt trey sound great, and I apologize for an unfortunate choice or wors in saying "real" musicians wouldn't understand it. I csan see you took that entirely differently than I meant it, and I guyess that is why you are reacting as if I was attacking you personally. That was not my intent at all, so again, I apologize. I did not mean to imply that none of the musicians who do use symbols this way are real musicians. I meant, collectively, worldwide, most musicians.
So I will will grant that the musicians in your recording pobably sound great. In fact, if they are half as good as I am now imagining them to be, they seem like *exactly* the sort of musicians - people who take pride in what they do, always striving to be best they can - who would be most receptive to the new opportunities opened up by moving to the more modern global standards :-)