Col Solo in Musescore?
How can one have a "Col 1" (also can be called, "Col Solo") in musescore, have it affect both playback and midi, or without having to copy paste the information from the 1st vioin staff down to the 2nd violin and not having to hide the notes.
if there isn't, are there any alternatives?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 5.29.39 PM.png | 891.73 KB |
Comments
It would be possible via copy & paste. If you prefer not to make the notes invisible, consider a second invisible staff for the playback. but also keep in mind, when you generate parts, you'll want those notes for real, won't do the second player(s) any good to see just "col 1"!
But also, consider whether you really want to be doing this at all. It's common to see notations like that in handwritten scores, to save take. If the editor of that score had had access to modern notation software, almost certainly they'd have taken advantage of it. No reason I can see why you should expending extra effort to reproduce a notation that only existed to save the original editor effort!
In reply to It would be possible via… by Marc Sabatella
I was just wondering the same thing and I found this conversation. Marc, for me I find it much easier to read a score with COL-------- than trying to look at the notes of two instruments to see they're in unison (or octaves). I suppose one could just add text like "Unison w/ Alto1", but to me, there are a lot of notes on a big band page and anything to make it easier to figure out what's happening on a particular page would be welcome. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.
I think it would be a cool feature to add if it would affect playback AND the part itself would have the notes spelled out, not "COL--". Maybe it could go way down on the bottom of the wish list. Or if I ever get into programming again (not likely in the near future), I might give it a try.
In reply to I was just wondering the… by gbluhm
Makes sense; it's a similar argument for why sometimes using repeats instead of writing things out can be simpler in some ways.
Personally I don't have difficulty just eyeballing it with big band scores - usually it's pretty plainly obvious since there are only two different transpositions involved. I don't think any major publishers still use "col" (and I've directed an awful lot of big band charts), but it was common indeed up through the 70's or so (pre-software).
It's orchestra scores where it gets moe
In reply to Makes sense; it's a similar… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for the response Marc. My lighthearted response to "I don't have difficulty just eyeballing it..." is that's because you're a professional! I see your point, but I thought of another reason. If you make a change in one part, you've got to remember to make the same change (or copy and paste, possibly including changing octaves) to all the "col" parts.
I agree with you about repeats but the problem with repeats for me is that I'm getting to the point where I almost never want a repeat to be exactly the same as the first time so I have to write it out. Once or twice I've said something like "play lower note on 2nd pass".
Any, just some thoughts. Thanks for responding!
In reply to Thanks for the response Marc… by gbluhm
Yes, needing to make changes in multiple places is a drag, and eventually it would be nice to have a way to set up individual passages as linked in that way so changing it in one place changes it elsewhere as well.
The comment about repeats applies mostly to lead sheets. I share your aversion to literal repeats in arrangements! I personally also dislike them in lead sheets as they can overcomplicate a roadmap and make it harder to keep track of when it's time for the bridge, but I do know some editor prefer them for the reason I mentioned.