Bell Tree and Mark Tree arpeggio UX / Engraving improvement

[zacjansheski]

Your idea

When attaching an arpeggio to a single note, perhaps the arpeggio should be the same minimum height as the beam.

Problem to be solved

There are a few different ways to notate for instruments like bell tree and mark tree.

MuseScore has these instruments set to a single line staff

Muse Sounds has the ability to play back a gliss up and gliss down with the appropriate arpeggio symbol attached.

When attaching a arpeggio to a single note, the argeggio is the height of the notehead

Prior art

Additional context

Example from a score

[bkunda]

@oktophonie would be good to discuss the feasibility of this.

[zacjansheski]

To take this a step further, both the arpeggio and gliss notations should be supported and easy to input.

Here is an example of users being unsure how to use the mark tree https://musescore.org/en/node/339035#comment-1230239

[Dima-S-Jr]

Let me express my opinion on this issue.

Instruments such as Bell Tree, Wind Chimes and Mark Tree, although they do not have a definite pitch, but they have a considerable inharmonious spectrum, which suggests that in notation for these instruments it makes sense to resort to the use of approximate pitch notation.

Below I will express my point of view, which seems to me the most suitable for solving this issue.

1. I consider it inappropriate to use arpeggio signs, since it is impossible to trace the course of the glissando, the initial and final pitches with the help of the arpeggio sign. Moreover, as I mentioned in issue #22342, the last note of an arpeggiated chord (and in this case, the last suspended chime/bowl) may fall on the beat. In the case of Mark Tree, Wind Chimes, Bell Tree (etc.), this is hardly appropriate, and therefore then you should additionally mark "start on the beat" and the arpeggiation speed (slow/fast/rit./accel.). In short, a lot of fuss.
2. I also think this kind of notation is not quite appropriate. In such a designation, it is not clear from which approximate pitch the glissando begins. It does not always have to start with the most extreme suspended chime/bowl. In some scores, you can find the designation "start from ½ of the range". Such a designation, firstly, requires additional space in the score, and secondly, requires additional time to read and correctly understand what the one who wrote it was trying to convey. Even more inappropriate is this kind of notation. With such a designation, confusion arises in the understanding of such a designation (the player may perceive it as a continuing repetition of the previous fragment). Moreover, a priori, the glissando line always has an angle of inclination, and if it does not exist, then the line loses its meaning (especially if the user changes the type of line from wavy to straight).
3. I recommend implementing a notation method in which the middle (and only) line of the percussion staff for instruments such as Mark Tree, Bell Tree and Wind Chimes would be considered as the middle of the range. Anything above this line would be counted from the middle to the highest pitch, and anything below this line would be counted from the middle to the lowest pitch. In this case, the notes of the highest or lowest pitch of sound would be indicated by a large arrow (see issue #22375 and the attached example). At the same time, the possibility of using a glissando line marked from note to rest and vice versa is not excluded (see the example). It is also possible to consider an option in which notation would be carried out on a three-line staff. In this case, the middle line of the staff would mean the same middle of the range, and the upper and lower lines would mean the highest and lowest pitch, respectively. This method (like the previous one) is more than allowed and recommended in modern musical notation, and also best clarifies the scheme of the glissando course. See the example. And finally, I think the most appropriate way to designate a glissando on a two-line staff, where the upper and lower lines of the staff would be considered as the highest and lowest pitch, respectively, and the space between them is the range of the instrument from the extreme pitches (see example).

That's all for now. I really hope that my comment will be taken into account and not deleted (as usual).