About Glissando

• Dec 29, 2019 - 17:41

I use the glissando (section Arpeggios & Glissando): through the inspector through the inspector I can indicate a diatonic or chromatic glissando or other.

Unfortunately I get a sound similar to the glissando on the piano that is a "chromatic scale" while I write classical guitar music where the semitones are barely heard because the string is plucked only once:
Is it possible to "soften" the "chromatic" effect?


Please see the image attached.

The post "Add Glissando playback style portamento" is dated oct, 5 2016.
After several months the priority should be increased (same logic of the management of priorities in the operating systems) otherwise the task in question will never be taken into consideration and implemented. Or am I wrong? :-)

Attachment Size
AddGlissando.png 21.01 KB

In reply to by chiapellobis

That indeed was the original plan when those levels got implemented. It was used that way onöly very shortly though...
In this case it probabyl won't help much, a proposed fixed exists, but needs more work, at least a rebase, but also some changes requested during code review.

In reply to by chiapellobis

After several months the priority should be increased (same logic of the management of priorities in the operating systems) otherwise the task in question will never be taken into consideration and implemented

I've passed over enough software projects by now to find this an extremely bad way of managing priorities, especially in a context where there is no obligation whatsoever to work on a specific task (which is pretty much the case in many open source projects). But even in a lot of companies after a while they simply end up with a list filled with Urgent items after which a 'Very Urgent' and 'Extremely Urgent' and whatever a higher-up can come up with.

While it makes sense to review priorities on a time-based matter, in a good schedule your critical items should always be handled first (without them, the product is unusable anyway, so no use for releasing it either). After that one should look into tackling a few high priority items (not all of them) and then look into the medium/lower wishlist to include some of those as well (to prevent starvation of those items).

Increasing priority because of time is seldom a good practice imo.

In reply to by jeetee

So you're telling me this will never be done.

Each new release will always have among the new bugs to be fixed, blockers or not.
I have been developing software for 39 years. I know that.

Unfortunately I don't have enough experience to work on musescore, my skill is in data-warehousing

In reply to by jeetee

Oh I know this isn't fair of me, but I couldn't help myself:
And instead of working on things like this and cross-staff arpeggios, maybe we'll be blessed with providing telemetrical user data activity to the team so that someone can spend time interpreting statistics instead :)

I would just like to add my voice to this request. (If I haven't already done so in the past) This is not a feature I would use regularly, but it came up this morning in an editing session. Not crucial, as live musicians would rely on the notation to understand the effect, but it would be nice if MS could manage the sound as well.

It sounds as if the OP's request and portamento implementation are slightly different. Plucking once a string of a fretted instrument and then sliding the fretted hand up/down a neck would still have a gradient/per-fret tone, but the sounds wouldn't nearly have the same level of attack in their sounding. Portamento as a bend, on the other hand, would have no separation of tone in its continuity. Both are welcomed by users, of course.

In reply to by worldwideweary

There has been some on and off discussion regarding the nature of a portamento effect within the framework of digital intruments, which no doubt will make its implementation a little more complicated than it may seem for any one particular use. A solution which suits one need could be entirely unsuitable for another. In the world of live musicians, there are (nearly) as many ways to perform portamento as there are instruments in the orchestra.

Your example of a fretted instrument is a perfect example. If the player plays in a way that the string contacts each fret, then indeed there will be a perception of the individual pitches. If they use a slide instead of their fingers (and don't depress the string all the way to the frets) the effect will be much different.

I can imagine the portamento command within MS needing to have definitions (available via the inspector) as to whether the effect is diatonic, chromatic, or sliding seamlessly from start-to-end.

In reply to by toffle

From my experience with MIDI applications, portamento needs to be implemented in mono-on mode to midi-channel. This is true for a real-legato.
I guess there is no way to switch channels to mono-on (MIDI) mode in the Musescore. (I'm talking about MIDI modes with mono/poly, not mono/stereo audio.)

It is the synthesizer module that interprets it.
For Legato: The synthesizer takes on the task of skipping the beginning of the next note and entering the sustain part with a light attack.
For Portamento: it does the job of changing the pitch of the note from one note to another, similar to the pitch-bend effect. It's easy because it allows only one note play because the channel is in mono-on mode.

In a R0land module, there are patches with an asterisk next to its name, which could make a real-legato. And when you select these patches, they were working in mono-on mode. ex.: Violin*

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