Possible to Implode a single staff's multiple voices into a single voice?
The v4 Handbook states that it's possible, working within a single staff, to implode multiple voices into a single voice:
Combine notes from multiple voices in a single staff into one voice
1. Select a range of measures in a single staff.
2. From the menu bar, select Tools→Implode.
All selected notes in the staff are now displayed in voice 1.
The text sited is from this section of the v4 Handbook
But when I run the Implode function—as described, on a single staff that contains multiple voices—I see NO change. Same result seen in MuseScore 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3.2
What am I missing?
scorster
Comments
Works fine here.
In reply to Works fine here. by graffesmusic
Well, it doesn't work if the note values are not the same in the different voices. And it's expected that this won't work since, in the same way, it's impossible to write, say, quarter notes in Voice 1 and half notes in the same Voice 1 etc. One overwrites the other. So, in the same way the feature Implode cannot work ((or partially, if certain notes have the same value in a certain voice)
On the other hand, as expected, the Implode function works totally on a single staff if all note values are identical (e.g. a chord with quarter notes in Voices 1, 2 and 3).
In short, the result depends on the content of the staff (in terms of voices and note values)
See:
In reply to Well, it doesn't work if the… by cadiz1
Thanks guys. And I very much appreciate the animation posted by cadiz1, which conveys certain matters quite clearly.
I was hoping for an option that would preserve note onsets by sacrificing durations when merging voices. I've almost completed a demonstration score. Will probably post that tomorrow. Please see the attached image which should suffice for now.
So then, roughly speaking, the required precondition is that note values in both voices must match—except that doesn't work when one voice has a note and the other voice contains a rest.
I can see how this could be challenging to describe, but the failure to mention it is a significant handbook omission.
scorster
In reply to Thanks guys. Very much… by scorster
"I was hoping for an option that would preserve note onsets by sacrificing durations while merging."
Well, you don't need Implode for that. Select a measure (for example) containing notes values say whole and half notes and in different voices -> Type 5 -> And you get only quarter notes (with the voices respected) - and the lower values, eighth notes, for example, are respected.
From this point on, the Implode function will work, as already seen, partially or totally, if you combine everything into a single voice.
In reply to "I was hoping for an option… by cadiz1
Perhaps I could have said it better, so I'll rephrase:
I was hoping for a voice merging option that would preserve note onsets at the expense of sacrificing durations.
I've also added an image to my previous post. It shows my desired result: where all notes start "on time" ... and to achieve that within a single voice some durations must be truncated.
The problems with setting all notes to quarters (via the 5 keystroke):
1) it produces some odd results on the example in the image
2) moreover, I don't want to change the rhythm
scorster
In reply to Perhaps I could have said it… by scorster
But you do change rhythm between 'before' and 'desired''.
Probably this will sound the same on a guitar, but not on a piano.
In reply to But you do change rhythm… by graffesmusic
graffesmusic wrote> But you do change rhythm between 'before' and 'desired''.
I should have been more clear.
In terms of durations, yes I'd want the face values of the rhythms changed; but of equal importance I want the note onset timing left unchanged. Said differently, it's the note onset timing that I want preserved, even at the expense of durational accuracy.
Probably this will sound the same on a guitar, but not on a piano.
Correct. The purpose is to produce simplified guitar notation because, when there is accurate linked tablature, the TAB Ring plugin can produce elegant and convincing playback durations, and it can do so more accurately than staves that employ three or four voices.
Correct again, regarding your piano comment: I don't recommend this duration-reduced style of notation for piano. Because on piano there's no means, other than voices, to produce the desired sounding durations in playback without laboriously manually tweaking the Len value in the Piano Roll Editor.
scorster
In reply to Thanks guys. Very much… by scorster
It only works if it can be notated in one voice.
![implode.png]( "implode.png")
In the desired 'After Implode' result, you have changed the note duration in the 2nd voice.
Do you want the 'Implode' function to change note durations?
It works fine in this case:
In reply to It only works if it can be… by graffesmusic
@scorster: Ah, I hadn't seen your previous comment.
So, in this case: select the measure / type 4. Everything will be in eighth notes. Then use the Implode function: be careful not to select both staves together (standard + linked TAB), only one of them, say the standard, if not, odd result...
And you'll get the desired result.
In reply to Ah, I hadn't seen your… by cadiz1
See:
In reply to See: [inline:Video 1.gif] by cadiz1
Yes, in simple circumstances your approach works perfectly.
But in an ever so slightly more complex example, the preparatory steps easily mount and the process becomes more time consuming. Consider these two examples:
In reply to It only works if it can be… by graffesmusic
graffesmusic wrote > In the desired 'After Implode' result, you have changed the note duration in the 2nd voice.
Yes, as a preparatory step that's exactly what I did. After eliminating duration "conflicts" between Voice 1 and Voice 2, Implode works (as does selecting all and sending all notes to Voice 1—although that requires the added task of deleting the remaining rests in Voice 2. Tools>Implode dismisses the unneeded rests automatically, so it's the preferred tool at this stage of the transformation.)
graffesmusic wrote > Do you want the 'Implode' function to change note durations?
Yes, I hoped Implode would have that option. Said differently, a "voice implode option that preserves note onset timing" would:
1) do the necessary preliminary "face value duration matching" transformations
2) then assign all notes to Voice 1, as implode already does.
3) delete all the rests from Voice 2, as implode already does.
So Step 1 is the only step currently unavailable.
scorster
In reply to graffesmusic wrote > In the… by scorster
Ok, i see your point. But only if given a choice of what to do via a dialog box and not by default.
I doubt that this would make it to MS core. Probably a plugin could be made for this.
In reply to Ok, i see your point. But… by graffesmusic
I agree with your three comments!
In reply to Agreeing with both your… by scorster
Do I get it correctly that you need to destroy correct notation just to make the tab ring plugin work ?
Instead of writing a plugin for this "destroy" action, wouldn't it be better to improve the tab ring plugin itself ?
In reply to Do I get it correctly that… by frfancha
@frfancha wrote >> *Do I get it correctly that you need to destroy correct notation just to make the Tab Ting plugin work ?
Not at all. TAB Ring works perfectly with voiced material. And rest assured I'm not needing to destroy anything. There's some method in my madness.
For years some publishers—those mainly focused on non-classical guitar finger-picking—have used this sort of simplified notation.
I'll will explain use cases in an upcoming post.
The goal here is to see if others have a simple workflow transforms voiced scores into this format ... and reap various benefits.
scorster
In reply to @frfancha wrote >> *Do I get… by scorster
You made me curious.
I'm a classical guitar player and I must admit I have difficulties to understand how detroying correct notation can be of any added value.
I totally get that one does not need "correct" multi voices notation to be able to reproduce a tune on paper, and that single voice version can be good enough, but why would one want to lose the multi-voices version when it exists is a mystery.
Looking forward to reading you.
In reply to @frfancha wrote >> *Do I get… by scorster
@scorster
You wrote:
"Correct. The purpose is to produce simplified guitar notation because, when there is accurate linked tablature, the TAB Ring plugin can produce elegant and convincing playback durations, and it can do so more accurately than staves that employ three or four voices."
And then:
"Not at all. TAB Ring works perfectly with voiced material"
That is quite contradictory
In reply to @scorster You wrote: … by frfancha
@scorster wrote:>> "TAB Ring plugin can produce elegant and convincing playback durations, and it can do so more accurately than staves that employ three or four voices."
@scorster wrote:>> "TAB Ring works perfectly with voiced material"
@frfancha:>> That is quite contradictory
I don't think it's important to discuss, but I don't see the contradiction:
• TAB Ring works great with single voice material
• and TAB Ring is perfectly compatible with staves containing multiple voices.
Either way TAB Ring can produce elegantly interpreted durations (like a skilled guitarist would). And where three or four voices fail to render fully interpreted playback, TAB Ring can finish the job, and does so without altering the written notation. AND the result is customized able via its Ring Tokens. Of course this is only of importance to people wanting realistic playback from MuseScore.
Have you tried TAB Ring?
Sadly MuseScore 4 can't yet take advantage of it, but it's fantastic in MuseScore 3.7!
Here are a few example my "MIDI" recordings made possible thanks to TAB Ring:
• Eleanor Plunkett
• Courante
• Unfolding
To be clear, for anyone who comes across Cruiskeen on the audio-com page, that audio is not from a MusesScore project, but rather it's me playing my acoustic guitar.
In reply to @scorster wrote:>> "TAB… by scorster
"I don't see the contradiction:
• TAB Ring works great with single voice material
• and TAB Ring is perfectly compatible with staves containing multiple voices.
"
Because you have skipped your sentences that are contradictory, which were :
"it can do so more accurately than staves that employ three or four voices"
Vs
"TAB Ring is perfectly compatible with staves containing multiple voices"
It can't at the same time be less accurate and work perfectly.
In reply to "I don't see the… by frfancha
Sorry, I still don't follow ...
Nobody here said TAB Ring is "less accurate" than something.
By "perfectly compatible with" I was stating that TAB Ring fulfills its promise. It achieves the purpose for which it was designed; therefore it can improve the playback of scores written with three or four voices.
Have you tried TAB Ring?
In reply to Sorry, I still don't follow … by scorster
"Nobody here said TAB Ring is "less accurate" than something."
That is a copy paste of your own post
In reply to "Nobody here said TAB Ring… by frfancha
?
Yes, you've posted a statement I made in my most recent post here. I'll surmise that you're trying to press your point that I've been contradictory.
I'm still curious: Have you used TAB Ring?
@scorster... Earlier you wrote:
For years some publishers—those mainly focused on non-classical guitar finger-picking—have used this sort of simplified notation.
I have even seen seen simplified notation in plectrum style (i.e., using a guitar pick).
Something like this example :
Notation_Example.mscz
...showing a basic melody at A, with embellishment at B, and which any competent guitarist would likely play as C, or D, perhaps even E.
In a picking exercise book, notating as B simplifies things.
Notating as E starts to look like a MIDI file conversion.
In reply to @scorster... Earlier you… by Jm6stringer
@jm6stringer
Thanks for this.
Illustrates the point perfectly!
Your example B (with TAB Ring applied) sounds like example E—but without the effort or pointless visual distraction. Skilled guitarists know how to interpret B, as does TAB Ring.
@jm6stringer wrote > Notating as E starts to look like a MIDI file conversion.
Couldn't have said it better! Accurate playback indeed, but who notates like that?