Is there any way to change from # to b in piano roll editor?

Strangely - all notes are displayed as sharps in piano roll (in the note info box top right - and over the note when editing) despite setting the key to one with flats (Dm for example) - I have been unable to find any preferences or in help to do this.

 

Is this possible?

 

Hope someone can help.

 

Thanks in advance!

Tim

As far as I know you cannot change the display. I've gotten used to it....

To give a bit of background info as to why this is the case..... (And i apologize for any brain numbing that may occur from reading the following...)

 

This convention of always using sharps when naming Midi Note Data.... goes back to the original days of when the Midi Standard Conventions were discussed and agreed to...

 

For an instrument with variable tuning capability (Such as a Violin where the exact position of the finger on the string determines the pitch) F Sharp and G Flat, for example.. are not the same note. They are slightly different.

 

For an instrument with Fixed Tuning.. such as a Piano with a Tempered scale... F Sharp and G Flat are exactly the same note always.

 

So for Midi Note Data generated by a Musical Keyboard or other device with Fixed Tuning they decided to always use Sharps as a naming convention. They could have used Flats instead but settled on Sharps for whatever, long lost and forgotten reason.

 

I recall Delia Derbyshire (BBC Radiophonic Workshop) complaining loudly about this convention because she wanted the choice when using something like a Theremin, but with Midi i/o capability...which has variable tuning capability but to no avail......

 

I also believe through conversations I have had in the past with others.. though I have no anecdotal evidence to support this... that Brian Eno also bitches about this quite regularly.. or at least used to!

Sharps are indicated because of the way notes were named in the MIDI standard.

 

To being with, each note is designated a number. Since there isn't any way (or any real need) to distinguish between sharps and flats, one was chosen over the other and sharps won! So when it comes to translating MIDI note data into note spellings, the MIDI convention is used: all sharps.

 

To n6's comment about differences in notes based on spelling... when it comes to tuning there isn't any difference between any given pitch that's spelled with a sharp or a flat. So...

 

C# & Db are the same pitch

B# and Cb are the same pitch

G and Abb are the same pitch

D## and E are the same pitch

Fb is the same pitch as E natural

 

...and so on...

 

Of course, we designate notes as flats, sharps, double flats, double sharps, and naturals according to harmonic context (or sometimes even convenience) but the tuning of a note doesn't change by way of how it's named.

 

Intonation... if a performer adjust their pitch slightly sharp or flat to accommodate the tuning of their instrument to someone else's (or to the ensemble), that doesn't change the note spelling either, at least not in Western notation.

Ski,

 

I have to disagree with you.. in reference to..

 

F Sharp and G Flat are not the same pitch.... Only when you use a piano keyboard for example where the pitches are 'evened out' as per a tempered scale, are the pitches exactly the same because there is only one physical note to press to play both possibilities..

 

For a violinist, they are different pitches and should be played slightly differently in terms of pitch....

 

To quote the technical language

 

"The enharmonic equivalent to F sharp is G flat in the equitempered scale"

 

The equitempered Scale refers to for example, a Piano Keyboard where F Sharp and G Flat are Identical notes.

 

"String ensembles and vocal groups, who have no mechanical tuning limitations, often use a tuning much closer to just intonation, as it is naturally more consonant. Other instruments, such as some wind, keyboard, and fretted instruments, often only approximate equal temperament, where technical limitations prevent exact tunings. Other wind instruments, that can easily and spontaneously bend their tone, most notably double-reeds, use tuning similar to string ensembles and vocal groups."

 

Ask a violinist to first play G Flat and then play F Sharp and you will notice their finger will move very slightly between the two notes... and you can hear a slight different in pitch.

 

Ask a pianist to first play G Flat and then F Sharp and both notes will sound exactly the same because of the technical limitations imposed that result in using the same physical key to play both notes.

So I understand that just and tempered are different. But what I'm getting out of this if I'm in the key of B major and write out a D# min chord, hand it to a string quartet it will sound slightly sharp compared to the next chord I give them, now modulated to Gb major, an Eb minor chord??

Hi Nigel,

 

I have to disagree with you disagreeing with me so get ready, it's dissertation time!

 

Equal temperament/intonation and note names/pitch spellings are two different things. Overlapping a discussion of those are the subjects of pitch and frequency, but I'll confine my examples to note intonation and note names. Two examples:

 

Let's say that a composer wrote a piece for string quartet in the whacky key of Fb major. You know, just to be "different". Of course there isn't any way to notate Fb major using conventional notation; there would have to be a double-flat in the key signature to accommodate such a key, and this would be highly unconventional if not downright confusing and annoying to read, viz:

 

Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb

 

But for argument's sake, let's say that the members of the quartet were tolerant of the strange key signature and able to successfully read and perform the piece. I daresay that there would be no difference between how it sounded played in Fb major than it would if the piece was written out (and performed) in the much more normal key of E. The only difference would be in the amount of rehearsal required to read through the piece, and the likelihood of making mistakes would be less if written in E.

 

During the performance of the piece in Fb major, however, the string players would -- as you pointed out -- tend towards non-equal tempered intonation. However, that does not have anything to do with the notes written on the page. Were the piece written in the conventional key of E major (4 sharps) their tendency to play pitches with just intonation would be exactly the same.

 

If tring players are going to tend towards just intonation when playing perfect fifths, say, their sensibilities towards adjusting their intonation won't change because of the key proper; if anything, their degree of "in tune-ness" as an ensemble will become increasingly difficult as they play in higher ranges on their respective instruments, regardless of the key.

 

Now let's change things up and explore a piece written in Cb major for harp, Bb clarinet and oboe. Cb is, of course, a legitimate key, and is the natural key for the harp with all pedals up. Meanwhile, the clarinet would be transposed up a whole step, its part written in Db major. Oboe in Cb. Now, as with all woodwind instruments, their intonation isn't perfect and exacting across the entire tessitura, and players have to constantly adjust their intonation to match that of the other players in the ensemble. So here, both woodwind instruments would be playing in a flat key as would be the harp, so we can eliminate any theories about whether or not it would sound different if the woodwind parts were written in B major (5 sharps) along with the harp part written in Cb major (7 flats). Still, the clarinetist and oboist will have to adjust their intonation not only to match each other but also to match that of the harp, particularly when playing in higher registers. This goes to show that intonation and notated pitch are mutually exclusive.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

 

Cheers,

 

Ski

Wow, talk about going on a tangent!

As was said, in midi terms, its irrelevant to the software in what key you are playing, because it's actualy registering what is being played. Computers have no need standard notation because what you play is what you get. Humans need that information to play the piece correctly, computers just do what they're told.

I'v never used notacion software, but I'm guessing this language quirk can easily be resolved for scoring.

The way Logic lists pitches in the event list (etc) isn't unfortunatly 'context sensitive'. Even of you work in a song in Eb, it will list the notes as D# etc.

 

 

[lobbying]That's IMO not a good solution, but less of a problem than the fact that the same thing may happen is score as well.

 

Try to play some simple major triads in the key of C (Db or C#, E, F# or Gb or B), and you'll know what I mean. They all look wrong, and need manual editing to look right.

 

Now, try to play a Db major 7 and see what happens. Logic only shows three of the four notes in that chord, because it (wrongly) sees that Db as a C#, and shows the C and the C# at the same position, so the two notes look like one note - C#.

 

I admit that I'm a Logic fanboy. But this is one of the things which IMO need a fix in Logic ASAP. [/lobbying]

 

(And: as much as I'm not a Sibelius fanboy (many things are overly complicated in Sibelius compared with Logic), Sibelius does this right.)

Yeah, Carlos, but it's all 100% relevant.

 

I'v never used notacion software, but I'm guessing this language quirk can easily be resolved for scoring.

 

Depends... If you're working on a piece that temporarily modulates out of a key signature, or goes on an excursion to an outside key, it might be necessary to indicate (say) a D as an Ebb during that part. Then it would need to be indicated as a D again if the piece returns to the original key. Things is, you can do this quite easily in the score editor right now! So this option already exists, just not in the piano roll.

Strangely - all notes are displayed as sharps in piano roll (in the note info box top right - and over the note when editing) despite setting the key to one with flats (Dm for example) - I have been unable to find any preferences or in help to do this.

 

 

Hi

 

 

You'll need to apply an 'enharmonic' adjustment, either using the Note Attributes box (2x click on the offending note), the menu shown below, or Key Commands

 

 

CCT

 

Edit... DOH... this works in the Score only, NOT the Piano Roll

 

CCT

Edited October 21, 2011 by CCTMusic

True ski, but I'm approaching this from a player/ recording aspect. If you play it correctly it will sound right when played back. There's still no pardoning this, since written music is much older then computer language, Apple should have gotten this right. More so having a score editor on board to put it all in context.

What I ment was midi is CPU language that has no room for interpretation. Otherwise, our CPU would edit our performance to fit in it's proverbial box. Anyway, the software is flawed and has been from day one. We can only hope it gets fixed, only to make room for other flaws. Ultimately it's a tool, and they all have limits. Try hammering a screw with a wrench

True ski, but I'm approaching this from a player/ recording aspect.

 

So am I. All 40+ year's worth, and still having fun!

 

Apple should have gotten this right. More so having a score editor on board to put it all in context.

 

It's not so much Apple. Logic has been this way since day 1, back before Apple bought emagic.

 

We have CPU for days, so I don't think CPU is the problem. Seems it's more a matter of programming than anything else. Getting note names to display in the context of key in other editors is prolly just a matter of coding the piano roll (and event editor?) display so that note names are displayed in context of the key signature. And by extension of that, note names would change as the key signature changes.

There are enharmonic nightmares in the real world of pen and paper too.

I had to do an arrangement from an arrangement that a well known chap at the time had done,and he started it in Db,(Someday I'll Fly Away) so when it went to the tonic minor the chords were (hat's off,he did it right) a bloody nightmare.

Had he done it in C#,there would have been no such nonsense.

 

Would be nice if the help display was key relevant.('t ain't in Score either).

 

And if you want to input in a transposing key it displays concert.

Which can be disconcerting.

 

 

In any case,I prefer flarps and shats.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Beer Moth

[Getting note names to display in the context of key in other editors is prolly just a matter of coding the piano roll (and event editor?) display so that note names are displayed in context of the key signature.

But Logic truly needs to understand that if you play a major triad, it should look like a major triad, and not be written eg. E Ab B (B major) in the key of C. A B major should never be written like that, in any key. This way of writing chords isn't only wrong - it makes sight readoing Logic sheets very hard, and means that Logic users need to know how to get it read and easier to read.

 

Ski, please just write "Sure, I agree - and will suggest an improvement in this area to Apple". OK?

E Ab B is wrong for a B chord anyway!

There are peeps who struggle with the correct harmonic spellings anyway,and though it could be more intelligent,the override suffices admirably,captain!

 

Small hic not far away...

E Ab B is wrong for a B chord anyway!

It sure is, and the same goes for eg. (Db major) C# F Ab. Logic displays triads correctly if you never eg. play E major->A minor in songs in the key of C major. A B major in the key of B major is displayed correctly, and four not chords are always shown with four notes if all the notes are diatonic to the key of the song.

Ski, please just write "Sure, I agree - and will suggest an improvement in this area to Apple". OK?

 

OK. "Sure, I agree - and will suggest an improvement in this area to Apple". And to show my sincerity, I want you to know that I didn't copy and past that. I typed it out.

 

Ski, please just write "Sure, I agree - and will suggest an improvement in this area to Apple". OK?

 

OK. "Sure, I agree - and will suggest an improvement in this area to Apple". And to show my sincerity, I want you to know that I didn't copy and past that. I typed it out.

 

I always knew that you had dignity enough to not just copy what others said.

E Ab B is wrong for a B chord anyway!

It sure is, and the same goes for eg. (Db major) C# F Ab. Logic displays triads correctly if you never eg. play E major->A minor in songs in the key of C major. A B major in the key of B major is displayed correctly, and four not chords are always shown with four notes if all the notes are diatonic to the key of the song.

 

Yes.

But it does display b10 chords correctly.

And more extended ones as often as not.

I would expect it to display B maj correctly in B.

What if you want Cb in B?

 

A la Ski?

 

Easily done...

What's a b10 chord? Is it something different than a #9 chord (eg C7 #9)?

b10 is the correct nomenclature for #9.

A million and one reasons why.

 

Go on.

 

I dare ya!

 

b10 is the correct nomenclature for #9.

A million and one reasons why.

 

Go on.

 

I dare ya!

 

 

I basically agree with the Berklee way of writing chords, for a few reasons. As an ex- student there, I remember how they explained that the way the prefer to write chords (similar to the Real Book way), is a result of many teachers discussing the pros and cons of the many existing solutions until they finally come to what they found what they consider the best way to do it.

 

But there isn't always only one best solution... and b/10 vs. #9 would be a special case anyway- also with the Berklee way as a reference. I don't need a million reasons - but what about 3? 5?

 

The reason I call it #9 (besides the reason that that has become the standard way to do it), is that that note often co-exists with the 3 (or 10).

 

Simple example: 1 3 5 b7 #9. A #9/b10 is an D#/Eb (if our example is a C chord), and that E is already used in the same chord. I could have called it C7 (b10) also, but most people write #9 (another reason to use it). But why do you insist that it's a b10?

 

There's no obvious chord/scale relationship involved in that chord, insisting that it has to be #9 and not b10, because the scale that goes with an 'altered' chord like this (eg C7 #9 b13) ,often use 1, b2(b9), #9 (#2) and 3 (10).

 

Please enlighten me. I'm all ears.

The Real Book follows and reinforces the sharp nine 'convention'.

That's why it has become the de facto way of doing it.

But...I'll have to get back to you in a few hours cos I'm tired and a slight bit under th influence.

I will deinatley give a full response asap!

 

Hic.

Never seen b10 anywhere. Only #9. Goes to show you.

 

So... I'm breaking my short-lived silence and discovered some interesting things about Logic's logic when it comes to the score editor and note spellings. I'll present my conclusion first: there's no note naming scheme will ever be 100% correct in any editor because there's too much gray area between the 'rules' of enharmonic notation and personal preferences/schools of thought. And with that said, there's no way a computer program is ever going to get it right, as you're about to see...

 

I played in a simple progression of root position chords:

C, B, Bb, A7

 

• In measures 1 and 2 we see the notation in the key signature of C. The B chord looks decidedly wrong (ouch).

 

• I copied over those notes to mm 3-4 but changed the key signature to the relative minor, A minor. The B chord now looks perfectly correct. So why can't it look like that in the key of C major? (rhetorical question)

 

• mm 5 - 8

I copied the notes from mm 1 - 4 and transposed them up a whole step; these notes are now playing in D major. I set the key signature to D major here. Second chord in mm 5 looks a little funky but is otherwise correct. A much better result than what Logic gave us in measure 1's second chord! Now, in mm 7 - 8 I didn't change the key signature so we're still in D major. In mm 7, I manually changed the F natural to an E#. That looks 100% correct to me, the best choice. Having a courtesy accidental on the C# in the bass wouldn't hurt.

 

• Copied chords from mm 1 - 4 into 9 - 12 and transposed the note events up two whole steps (notes now playing in E major). I set the key signature to E major. Second chord in mm 9 looks funky, but isn't totally wrong.

 

• mm 11 - 12

I changed the key signature to the relative minor, C# minor, and now the second chord looks entirely correct.

Wow, interesting piece of research. So what I'm getting out of this is a major problem is resolved by a relatively minor change......

 

But seriously - it's odd that the relative minor signature selection works better.

Ba-doom, CH!

 

Yeah, interesting little algorithm they have going on there.

 

On the subject of reading/writing enharmonic spellings, I'd love to get other people's take on how they feel about the chord spellings of the blue-colored chords in mm 3, 7, and 11.

Well, I see my comments and thoughts really caused a kind of 'sugar storm' when that wasn't the intention!

 

I think in many ways some of us are saying much the same thing but in different ways.

 

To clarify my point of view....

 

In terms of Midi data, F Sharp and G Flat are one and the same note.

 

Using a Piano, Guitar with frets or any other mechanically limited tuning wise instrument F Sharp and G Flat are one and the same note...

 

For a Violinist, Vocalist (so long as they are not using Auto-Tune!!! ) or any instrument where the ability to fine tune without mechanical limitations exists.. F Sharp and G Flat are NOT the same note.

 

The player of such 'unlimited mechanically' instruments can and often will make a distinction between the two... where as the player of Mechanically limited instruments cannot physically make any distinction and therefore won't.

 

That's all I am saying.... If anyone wishes to dispute these facts.. then go talk to a professional violinist and ask them if they consider and play F Sharp in the same way and with the same pitch as they play G Flat....

 

The rest of the discussion are frankly.. a bit moot as far as the original point being made.. But having said that... I am finding the various opinions expressed and discussions leading on from these opinions.. fascinating!!

 

It probably needs it's own thread to carry this on. Yes?

Nah, not a sugar storm, just conversation. But I have to say, in all my years I've never had an instrumentalist ever ask me if I'd like them to play (say) more of a Gb when I've written F#. Sure, I've had them tell me that they weren't playing out of tune (when they were), or, "what you really meant to write was four sixteenth notes" (when I wrote a 16th note quintuplet) but never "how would you like me to think about this note pitch-wise".

 

I've studied violin, viola, clarinet, bass clarinet, and bassoon and never did I have an instructor ever tell me to approach a written pitch more like another written pitch, hypothetically or otherwise. And I've never seen anything in any of the literature that suggests that any written note has two possible approaches, other than matters of enharmonic spelling.

 

Finally, I take [ahem] great exception to your mentioning how everything else that's somewhat OT in this thread is moot. Don't you know anything about this forum? Given the chance we'll go off on a tangent, and at no extra charge!

 

Seriously tho, I find this to be a really interesting discussion. Personally I'm glad that this isn't one of those one-dimensional forums where, when the conversation strays a bit, some people (especially the $!@* moderators) get all bent out of shape and stupid about it. Yes, we like to keep one topic per thread, but personally I see all of this discussion as interrelated (if not just downright interesting). Not sure how it couldn't be when discussing the topic of note names.

 

Cheers!

 

Ski

Edited October 21, 2011 by ski

Wow, interesting piece of research. So what I'm getting out of this is a major problem is resolved by a relatively minor change......

 

But seriously - it's odd that the relative minor signature selection works better.

 

[walks out from door to Finale-land, a la Rain Man]

 

… probably something to do with secondary dominant of five, more common than secondary dominant of three …

 

[walks back into Finale-land]