Encore -- Metric Flex

[q]

How about endowing Encore with a new tool that allows users to stretch or shrink the metric makeup their scores?

Sometimes I want to do this for scholarly reasons ... other times it's to simplify a score for a student.

Here's an example score, an Allemande by J.S. Bach. Though this piece is rather easy to play, it's challenging for kids to read in it's original form—those 16th notes easily scare and confuse them. I rewrite such scores for kids in a simpler metric framework ... so they can play beautiful music they might otherwise find unapproachable.

Here's the Bach Allemande in its original metric setting:


 

Here's a metric simplification of the same piece -- a "duration doubling" transformation. The length of every note is doubled; every measure in the previous score becomes two measures in the new score:


The more grueling the task, the more I want to rely on Encore to perform it. It would be great if Encore had a tool that does this automatically -- something so robust that the user could make a round-trip in a couple of keystrokes.

If I'm not mistaken, the logic required to produce this transformation is quite simple:


To double note values (i.e. quarters become halves, etc.), change the note-start and note-end to 200% of their current values.

To halve note values, change the start and end to 50% of their current values.

Of course, Encore would also need to recalculate the measure assignments, just as I did manually in the example above.
What do you think?

q

[polarbreeze]

This would be a very useful addition to the Encore suite of features. We'd have to consider what it does to the underlying MIDI data and for simplicity I think it would be fine if it simply recalculated all the MIDI start and stop times to exactly reflect the new notation with a 90% play duration. Very nice feature but let's not rush into things - the request has only been around for about 5 years

[riojazz]

Although I have another software program that will do this, it would be wonderful if Encore could also.

[q]

Although I have another software program that will do this, it would be wonderful if Encore could also.

Ah! Riojazz, which software? I know Finale can do it.

Can you post an image of the "transmogrification" dialog so we can see the parameters?

I think it's really important for Gvox product management to look at multiple examples of "how it's done" (for any feature or function!) and then borrow from many scenarios to render the best possible implementation.

Existing invention is a wonderful springboard for invention.

THANKS!

q

[riojazz]

You will probably laugh, but it's Band-in-a-Box by PG Music. You can import a MIDI file and expand durations by 2 as you mentioned, or reduce durations by 1/2 (which is also useful) then export the MIDI file.

Can you post your MIDI file, and I'll give it a shot?

[q]

You will probably laugh, but it's Band-in-a-Box by PG Music. You can import a MIDI file and expand durations by 2 as you mentioned, or reduce durations by 1/2 (which is also useful) then export the MIDI file.

Can you post your MIDI file, and I'll give it a shot?

Oh. If that simply affects MIDI in BIAB that's a pretty straightforward transformation. The more challenging trick is managing it within a notational framework. Does the feature also update BIAB's notation view intelligently?

Thanks!!

q

[riojazz]

Yes. Send me a file, we'll give it a try.

[Andre_B]

I know that I made a similar suggestion, and it wasn't quite supported. No idea anymore when, I would say 3 or 4 years ago... and I don't remember having seen this append. But browsing the titles, "Metric Flex" would not have tilted...

I suppose that generally one would want to stretch the metric by a power of 2, 2/3 would also be useful (to convert a 4/4 full of triplets into a plain 12/8, for instance).

My expectation was that, having raw data, this could be obtained by changing the time signature and the tempo value as it should (I wouldn't expect bars and face values to be present in MIDI...).

[anaigeon]

Suppose you ask to double a piece which has a 3/8 time signature ; what should Encore write as the target signature ?
6/8 (which seems the probable result of a simple algorithm), or 3/1 (which is correct) ?

[q]

Suppose you ask to double a piece which has a 3/8 time signature ; what should Encore write as the target signature ?
6/8 (which seems the probable result of a simple algorithm), or 3/1 (which is correct) ?

Well, it depends on what you're doubling. The count? The "denominator? — i.e. the face value of the note equaling the count?

Ideally the interface and function would be able to accommodate your intended goal.

q

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, a,

Suppose you ask to double a piece which has a 3/8 time signature ; what should Encore write as the target signature ?
6/8 (which seems the probable result of a simple algorithm), or 3/1 (which is correct) ?

As you know, I'm a telephone engineer with just enough knowledge of musical theory to be dangerous. Could you please fill me in on this matter of "doubling a piece" and of a "3/1" meter.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

[polarbreeze]

Hi, a,

Suppose you ask to double a piece which has a 3/8 time signature ; what should Encore write as the target signature ?
6/8 (which seems the probable result of a simple algorithm), or 3/1 (which is correct) ?

As you know, I'm a telephone engineer with just enough knowledge of musical theory to be dangerous. Could you please fill me in on this matter of "doubling a piece" and of a "3/1" meter.

The image below shows (some simple examples of) the kinds of transformations this is all about. I don't quite understand the comment about 3/1 - that would be three whole notes. I think it means 3/4. In general, it's all about re-crafting the same melody with a different time signature, which gives it a different feel.

Screen Shot 2012-08-08 at 2.57.41 PM.jpg (28.87 KiB) Viewed 113 times

[anaigeon]

I must have been tired when I wrote about 3/1
What I wanted to emphasize is the ambiguity arising when multipling values by 2 in a piece having a ternary time signature
(or by 3 in a binary piece).
(this ambiguity, BTW, had lead to many comments and flames between early theoreticians !)

In the very first example (allemande), note values were doubled, and bars ajusted to respect the original time signature.
That's exactly what you do, polarbreeze, in your second 4/4 example where 8th notes become quarters.
However, I don't understand your first example under 3/8, since the same process should make 8th become quarters too, and this obviously doesn't fit the original time signature.
That's why you've choosen a different transformation, but I'm not sure what a non human soft should do in such situations.
Because :
1) 3/8 time signature has three times
but your target 6/8 has two times - each of them a dotted quarter
it means the time signature has been deeply changed !
3) an alternate method would be to double the values, and change the time signature to 3/4, which *has* three times - thus respecting the source time signature.

That's why I said I have doubts about a 100% automatic processing of such situations.
We should think about the frustration felt by the user if the program chooses the wrong (unwished) option, making necessary to undo it, and then redo the job the correct way - double work

[polarbreeze]

However, I don't understand your first example under 3/8, since the same process should make 8th become quarters too, and this obviously doesn't fit the original time signature.
That's why you've choosen a different transformation, but I'm not sure what a non human soft should do in such situations.

Yes, I chose that example on purpose. There is quite a variety of different ways in which a user might want to adapt the time signature and any automated function to do that should give the user the opportunity to choose any of them. In the 3/8 example, you might want to change it to 6/8 or even 12/8. Or you might want to change 12/8 to 3/8 - in all these cases not changing the time value, just redistributing the barlines. Of you might want to transform 3/8 to 3/4 (or the reverse), keeping the same number of notes per measure and therefore multiplying (or dividing) the time value of each note. And you might (though as you say it's a bit unmusical) change 6/8 to 3/4, keeping the same time values (so in this case the barlines remain unchanged but the pulse is transformed). Of you may want to transform a jazz waltz (6/8) to a 3/4 waltz or the reverse, which would then involve a multiplication or division of time values. Etc etc. Any auto implementation needs to allow for all those kinds of transformations, which for a computer are all equally "easy" to implement but for a human user are lengthy and tedious to do.

[q]

Nicely explained polarbreeze. Thanks for the examples.

q

However, I don't understand your first example under 3/8, since the same process should make 8th become quarters too, and this obviously doesn't fit the original time signature.

That's why you've choosen a different transformation, but I'm not sure what a non human soft should do in such situations.

Yes, I chose that example on purpose. There is quite a variety of different ways in which a user might want to adapt the time signature and any automated function to do that should give the user the opportunity to choose any of them.

In the 3/8 example:

• you might want to change it to 6/8 or even 12/8. Or you might want to change 12/8 to 3/8 - in all these cases not changing the time value, just redistributing the barlines.
  
• Or you might want to transform 3/8 to 3/4 (or the reverse), keeping the same number of notes per measure and therefore multiplying (or dividing) the time value of each note.

And you might (though as you say it's a bit unmusical) change 6/8 to 3/4, keeping the same time values (so in this case the barlines remain unchanged but the pulse is transformed).

Or you may want to transform a jazz waltz (6/8) to a 3/4 waltz or the reverse, which would then involve a multiplication or division of time values. Etc etc. Any auto implementation needs to allow for all those kinds of transformations, which for a computer are all equally "easy" to implement but for a human user are lengthy and tedious to do.