Metric Modulation not respected

Discuss playback problems, including VST, Garritan, MIDI, etc.

Moderators: Peter Thomsen, miker

User avatar
apkyburz
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:50 am
Finale Version: 26 (+TG, Pattsn, JW)
Operating System: Mac

Post by apkyburz » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:25 pm

Hi forum,

Somehow I don't get metric modulations to play back.

The mms are in the Tempo Marks category.

Any suggestions?

Thanks


User avatar
motet
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:48 pm

Does Human Playback recognize those? I'm not sure. I would just set the playback tempo of "quarter = dotted quarter" to dotted quarter = 149 and be done with it. Of course if you use that elsewhere and the tempo is different, you'll need to make a new one.

Unsolicited advice: standard metronome marks include 144 and 152. I would use one of those instead.

User avatar
apkyburz
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:50 am
Finale Version: 26 (+TG, Pattsn, JW)
Operating System: Mac

Post by apkyburz » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:22 pm

motet wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:48 pm
Does Human Playback recognize those? I'm not sure. I would just set the playback tempo of "quarter = dotted quarter" to dotted quarter = 149 and be done with it. Of course if you use that elsewhere and the tempo is different, you'll need to make a new one.

Unsolicited advice: standard metronome marks include 144 and 152. I would use one of those instead.
Ye, I guess you're right. I did it with hidden text.

User avatar
zuill
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:35 pm
Finale Version: Finale 2011-v26.3.1
Operating System: Windows

Post by zuill » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:39 am

There's no need for a hidden expression. Just change the existing expression for the proper tempo. If you need that same expression elsewhere with a different tempo, just make a duplicate of the original first. This is the same advice Motet gave earlier (and you quoted in your post). Maybe you weren't sure what he was saying.

Zuill
Windows 10, Finale 2011-v26.3.1
"When all is said and done, more is said than done."

User avatar
motet
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:36 am

I retract my criticism of q=149. Why not?!

User avatar
apkyburz
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:50 am
Finale Version: 26 (+TG, Pattsn, JW)
Operating System: Mac

Post by apkyburz » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:33 pm

zuill wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:39 am
There's no need for a hidden expression. Just change the existing expression for the proper tempo. If you need that same expression elsewhere with a different tempo, just make a duplicate of the original first. This is the same advice Motet gave earlier (and you quoted in your post). Maybe you weren't sure what he was saying.

Zuill
Ah, I see.
Yes, you're right, I didn't understand your suggestion quite right, Motet. That's a great idea, and much cleaner.

Thanks to both of you.

User avatar
miker
Posts: 5993
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:28 pm
Finale Version: Finale 27.4
Operating System: Mac

Post by miker » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:39 pm

Motet: why are certain tempi “standards?”
Finale 27 | SmartScorePro 64
Mac OS 13.2.1 Ventura
Copyist for Barbershop Harmony Society

User avatar
motet
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:02 pm

Traditionally, composers and editors have stuck to a common subset of numbers (e.g., 60, 72, 80, 108, etc.). One also saw these as settings on mechanical metronomes. As such, conductors tend to be familiar with the feel of these. The difference between 120 and 122, say, is not going to be noticeable, and tempo is going to vary from performance to performance, so most people stick to the common subset.

But I withdrew my criticism above--if the composer wants to specify something very precisely, why not, as I said?

User avatar
apkyburz
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:50 am
Finale Version: 26 (+TG, Pattsn, JW)
Operating System: Mac

Post by apkyburz » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:11 pm

motet wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:02 pm
Traditionally, composers and editors have stuck to a common subset of numbers (e.g., 60, 72, 80, 108, etc.). One also saw these as settings on mechanical metronomes. As such, conductors tend to be familiar with the feel of these. The difference between 120 and 122, say, is not going to be noticeable, and tempo is going to vary from performance to performance, so most people stick to the common subset.

But I withdrew my criticism above--if the composer wants to specify something very precisely, why not, as I said?
Interesting, thanks for the share!

The music in my example above is a cue for moving picture, that's why the tempo is so specific.

Post Reply