Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: shifted slur when the staves splitted (Read 2324 times) previous topic - next topic

shifted slur when the staves splitted

Hello,
I tried to split the staves using the user tools, starter then parts. My question is in the original (see attached, what does it mean from the soprano note slured to Alto note, and when I split it, even the slur is for soprano and the note in the soprano the 1/8 note changed to rest. How can I correct it, should I correct it manually reinstate again the 1/8 note for Soprano? and what shall I do with the slur.

Thanks for any help, because I want to change it to number note for practice in our Indonesian SDA church.

Thank you,

Frank

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #1 –
My interpretation of that music (with which I am familiar) is that the slur doesn't belong there. The staff splitting might still be confused by the rest chord, in which case you would need to manually change the rest in the soprano part to a note.

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Mike Shawaluk –
My interpretation of that music (with which I am familiar) is that the slur doesn't belong there.
Yes, but what is the purpose of the song writer to slur it to the alto note. See attached nwc file. Maybe Lawrie have any idea.
Thanks to all of you.
Frank

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #3 –
OK, seeing as I've been asked...

First, I agree with Mike.

In more detail:
I don't think the slur has anything to do with the Soprano part.  I think it belongs solely to the Alto part and now you've split the parts the restchord on beat 2 should become just a note, and the following quaver rest should be deleted.

In the Soprano part, a quaver rest has appeared.  This should not be, that rest should be the quaver Bb from the original staff.

I believe we are seeing artifacts from how NWC stores slur information, and how "Parts" works.  I also think the "No Single" parameter may have been used when it shouldn't.

Find attached my *raw results using "Parts" but using either "Retain Top" or "Retain Bottom" parameters as appropriate for each staff.  Please note that it seems to reflect my assessment above.

I have not edited the resulting, split staves.  There is some tidy-up needed if it were to be used.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
Find attached my *raw results using "Parts" but using either "Retain Top" or "Retain Bottom" parameters as appropriate for each staff.  Please note that it seems to reflect my assessment above.
Yes Lawrie it seems it's better using Retain, rather than Remove. On tidying it up, we just delete the long slur?

Thank you.

Frank

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #5 –
Hi Frank,
you almost always need to do some tidying up edits after using Parts - and many other tools - as artefacts can often be left behind.

So yes, remove the unresolved tie in the Bass part, and adjust whatever else needs to be adjusted as required on all staves.

Just remember, user tools are great!  BUT, it is your job to check the results and fix any errors that occur.  Mostly the results will be perfectly fine, but occasionally something unexpected will happen, and you'll need to make corrections.

I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #6 –
Quote from: FrankSit –
Yes Lawrie it seems it's better using Retain, rather than Remove.
<snip>
Sometimes, sometimes not.  Once you are familiar with how the tool behaves you can often predict which approach will be best, but both retain and remove have their purposes and are equally valid to use depending on requirements.

In this particular case, retain was a better choice (IMHO).  I have found that the "no single" parameter is often less useful than it might seem.  Its application is *fairly limited, but when it is actually needed, it's invaluable.

* The sole purpose of "No Single" is to replace single notes in the selection with a rest.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.
 

Re: shifted slur when the staves splitted

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
Quote from: FrankSit –
Yes Lawrie it seems it's better using Retain, rather than Remove.
<snip>
Sometimes, sometimes not.  Once you are familiar with how the tool behaves you can often predict which approach will be best, but both retain and remove have their purposes and are equally valid to use depending on requirements.

In this particular case, retain was a better choice (IMHO).  I have found that the "no single" parameter is often less useful than it might seem.  Its application is *fairly limited, but when it is actually needed, it's invaluable.

* The sole purpose of "No Single" is to replace single notes in the selection with a rest.
Thank you that you mentioned it because at the first try before I erase no single,  the result is the same as not using retain. I wondered how can you get it, then i clicked the thir pop up, then there is word" no single". Then my result was the same as yours.

Again thank you very much.
Frank