![]() Does this system generate the exact same arrangement for a tune every single time? Are there any ways to influence the results?Ĭurrently the system is entirely deterministic (other than the options menu), so given the same input it will produce the same output.Ultimately for now in this particular situation you may just have to follow your ear and introduce chord voicings that are not part of the current system - try adding a root back into the bottom of the chord! You might try playing around with the options to make major triads into 6 chord, or 6/9 chords, which may sound slightly better though still somewhat unresolved. Right now that is just a limitation of the strictness of the system, and in your case it's probably a result of all the major triads being forced into maj7 chords. Unfortunately, that's a pretty rough sounding chord, especially as an ending chord for a tune. ![]() It's common for a melody to end on the root note and the tonic chord, but remember that the drop 2 voicing (for example) for a maj7 chord with the root in the top voice will have the 7th in the bottom voice. My melody ends on the root note, and the final chord is the tonic, but that final voicing sounds very ugly and unresolved.If you have room, you could also try raising your entire melody an octave. If you haven't already, try using drop2 voicings. This is almost certainly because your melody went very low on the guitar and there wasn't room on the strings below it to create a drop voicing. The algorithm couldn't find a valid place to play a some particular chord voicing on the guitar while respecting the string adjacency rules for the drop type of that chord. Why is one of the chords missing a fretboard diagram?.Yes! It's still experimental, but now we should be able to handle time signature changes. No, time signature changes aren't supported yet. Speaking of which, do you support time signature changes?.True anacrusis is not currently supported, but you can make your score work by changing the measure duration to match the time signature, and adding rests before the pickup notes. This is common for pickup measures that precede the start of a tune. For example you might have a measure containing a single quarter note in a 4/4 time signature. Your score contains some measure(s) where the length of the contents (notes and rests) doesn't match the measure duration suggested by the time signature. What does the error "We currently don't support anacrusis (pickup measures)" mean?.Or you do it the other way round adjust the cello “scale” (which is less work, but presumably further away from the implied structure of the score, as much as one can deduce this from a single bar, which one can’t): that would mean a 3:7 crotchet tuplet (9:21 for three bars, to complete the example above).ĭepending on which approach you use, you may have to apply an anacrusis to the initial local time signature, as described in the tutorial.|Background| |Instructions| |Method| |FAQ| |Contact| If it is the cello part, then enclose each of the bars for the other three Players with a tuplet of 7:3 crotchets (pro tip: if it is a longer passage, you can do it all in one tuplet that is set to “span barline” e.g., if you have a passage of three such parallel bars, for each Player one tuplet of 21:9 crotchets is enough). The ratio that you are looking for is just that, that horrible ratio of 7:3.įirst question here would be what your base metre is (i.e.: the one you don’t want to “fake”). I’m not sure if I’m not misunderstanding something.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |