Voices matter

• Jun 13, 2023 - 17:30

https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/voices
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/working-multiple-voices

Voices was one confusing function when I was picking up musescore 2 long time ago. It is essential to learn only a lunatic enter triads with Voice 1,2,3.

I presume voice function evolved along musescore's continuous dev journey, but the underlining logic roughly resembles subtrack, 4 tracks 4 voices, am I correct?

Handbook 3 groups related info under the term "Voices", which is grouping info under a class. It is a common practice back in the days to write guide book from programmer's prespective, listing the function of each class in turns.

The term of choice leads to expectation of features based on daily usage of the word "voice" as in polyphonic music and its related concepts. Users must learn to "forget" voice 1,2,3,4 have pitch / vocal ranges: do not use "Voice 3 for T (tenor) in Close/Closed score SATB". As a result, it is important to include in the handbook:

  • spot the problem: wrong expectation, dev happens to use voice to mean the track-ish function
  • invent words to clarify: this capital V Voice 1 is not voice soprano
  • show how nice musescore to designed to work and what to do when user don't want them: automatic stem, automatic rests
  • warn users: do not do this when composing that kind of SATB

Problem being

  1. it's lengthy to explain how to spot the problem in words.
  2. lengthy yet incomplete. some features are intentionally left out. eg the voices of drum notation
  3. warning about the occasions where a new user should not use voice is paradoxically written under voices.

Handbook 4 takes a different and more friendly approach, it groups related knowledge using objectives: https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/editing-handbook: "Think about what most users will be trying to achieve, and why they might be coming to the handbook to look for information." I feel it is implied we'd write less on Voice (the class) in the handbook 4 in order to prevent over-complication. Plus, caution is used to write as simple as possible to avoid long brick wall text that works as a "sink".

Do you think the handbook 4 should include:

  1. contrast voice and voice :)
  2. a topic for info related to Voice (the class) ? new users noticing that 1,2 button on the toolbar may be interested in "why you need or need not" section in handbook 3, but it shouldn't be under handbook 4 article, as "multiple voices" wording mean SATB. Also why a single voice 1 is good https://musescore.org/en/node/350450#comment-1191713
  3. handbook3 Voices: SATB tips ?

Comments

• Jun 15, 2023 - 15:55

To be clear, this post aims to discuss handbook 4 instead of 3. I'm answering my own 3 questions:
1. yes
2. no
3. no
My solution: clarify that handbook 4 is not about voice the class, and provide a link to the list in handbook 3.

Pre-edit https://musescore.org/en/node/329661/revisions/519478/view : the definition given at the top of the article "A "voice" is a musical line with its own rhythm independent of other voices on the same staff" is based on Musescore's design and is rarely used as such outside this software scope. Although I understand that helps explanation latter on by not drawing unnecessary attention to the Voice class, it inevitably confuses novices how voice works in Musescore.

To better to help musicians seeking info on "Entering notes and rests in multiple voices", I changed the definition to allow focus on providing ways to write polyphonic music or large work's sketch. This means handbook 4 voice page is kind of more goal-oriented
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/editing-handbook#Content , departing from Handbook 3 voice page which is more descriptive and programmer oriented.

What do you think?

Reply

• Jun 15, 2023 - 21:26

I think it is likely to add unnecessary confusion to refer to voices as meaning something different than what it actually means in MuseScore. It's OK to add a parenthetic comments that the term can have other meaning in other contexts, but the primary definition given here must be the MuseScore one. Which isn't I should add, unique to MuseScore - almost all software does something similar.

Reply

• Jun 15, 2023 - 22:36

Agree, almost all software we know explain functionalities in similar way. The problem is that the word voice means two things and both of them are correct: voice is a feature that we need to learn how to utilize, and voice is also the goal that a musician what to write music with, AND handbook 4 seems to take a turn and encourage objective oriented guideline style.

The gist is what should "Working with multiple voices" and "Entering notes and rests in multiple voices" mean? Will people who seek this info understand it the intended way?

current (edited) handbook 3 and 4 voice articles differ in style only, I'm careful to make sure both of them make sense academically and make sense to experienced musescore user.

quick links at the very top of this page.

Reply

• Jun 15, 2023 - 22:44

Correction: I said "I changed the definition", but I did not really. I just try explain how the voice feature is similar to daily usage of the word, and then inject useful info in latter part of that article emphasizing on why : because you use multiple voices in one staff.

Reply

• Jun 15, 2023 - 22:54

I think there should be brief mention that "voices" can mean one thing in counterpoint, and also another thing as it refers to the act of a human being singing, but that this entire section is about one specific meaning regarding independent rhythms on a single staff. This should be clarified at the top and then no further reference should be made to the fact that alternative definitions exist. "Working with multiple voices" then means exactly what it says given the one and only relevant definition. Same for "Entering notes and rests in multiple voices". The more that we remind people there are alternative definitions, the more confusing we make it.

Reply

• Jun 15, 2023 - 23:18

I see. Yes it'll be good to restrict mentioning alternative definitions.

I think there's a misunderstanding about the alternatives. The split is not at singing, it is at:

  1. independent rhythms on a single staff
  2. independent rhythms anything (including on a single staff, among multiple staffs/hands in one instruments, or on staffs of multiple instruments)

As a semi-pro musescore user, the former 1 definition definitely pops up in my head when I see voice, because I've learnt the way.

But I'd understand why questions like "how do I remove rests that appears suddenly?" appear on .org forum every now and then: because for whatever reason they are working with definition 2 inside their brain. I think the handbook 4 "Working with multiple voices" is perfect title for them to click on and read.

Plus I think sounds for voices is an interesting point to address in handbook 4.

Reply

• Jun 15, 2023 - 23:30

I did get you were referring to the definition involve parts of a contropuntal work, but I almost never hear anyone being confused about that, because few people are even aware of that. They are often confused with singing, though. In theory, either of these alternate definitions could cause confusion.

I actually considered not using the word "voice" in the name of the page at all. Right now (and in the past), people who associate "voice" only with singing are likely to skip this page entirely if they aren't writing vocal music, then they wonder why they can't figure out how to have different rhythms at once on the same staff in their piano music. But, leaving this term out of the title does no favors to those who are aware of this and are simply looking for more info about it.

Reply

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.