Setting a fixed number of measures across the page
Is there a way to manually set the number of measures across the page so the finished score is regular in appearance?
I finished 6 choruses of walking-bass lines for "All Blues," the 12-bar Miles Davis tune in 6/8. The score varies arbitrarily between 5 and 6 measures across, with the final 72nd measure all alone by itself. Musescore will organize the grouping of regular 8th-note lines into two groups of three per measure - fine, but do I have to specify the spacing among the three-note groups, because they vary widely (pun intentional) depending on the size of the interval(s). I wind up with a score with 5, then 6, then 5 measures across, and that risible single measure at the end.
Comments
In order to advise betrter how to het the best results for your particular score, we'd need you to attach it.
But in general, you can certainly get a consistent four measures or whatever using Format / Add/Remove System Breaks. That's sometimes what you want, especially for lead sheets. But for transcriptions it's less useful I find, because the unequal note spacing that results from having some measures fuller than others but then forced to the same number of them on each system makes for music that alternates between too cramped, too loose, and just right. It's often better to just letter the algorithm do it's thing, but then eyeball it and decide for yourself which system(s) could maybe stand to be broken differently to get that last measure to not be so lonely.
In reply to In order to advise betrter… by Marc Sabatella
Actually tried to excerpt the last 12-measure chorus & attach it, but the thing shape-shifted & I wound up with TWO mm all by themselves at the end. So here's the whole thing.
And Format / Add/Remove System Breaks will do the trick; I might fool around with measure size, etc. among the commands I've glimpsed. For a 72-measure set of choruses, 4 mm across may seem too few, but at least it's regular & professional-looking - and if you print it out there's lots of room for annotations, extra licks, rude comments, etc.
Above all thanks for your efforts.
In reply to Actually tried to excerpt… by basstorius
"Professional-looking" is pretty subjective, as standards different across publishers and definitely according to genre. For lead sheets, some publishers like to stick to four per bar no matter what, others will allow an occasional 3 or 5 or 6 in an effort to keep the form clear, like including both 1st & 2nd ending on the same line for the first A section so the bridge starts on a line, etc. For transcriptions, my sense is most professional editions do not try to force four measures per line, because as I said, it results in pretty bad spacing really in in a lot of cases, plus it can make things take more pages than they otherwise would.
That said, in your particular case here, it's not too bad. It still fits on two pages, and since pretty much every measure is the same width anyhow as it's primarily a walking line, spacing is decent. If you want to see how it could be problematic in other cases, try filling one line with mostly sixteenths, another with more dotted halves and dotted quarters, then compare the remaining eighth notes on each line. Some amount of variation is inevitable, but reducing that sort of inconsistency is actually one of the hallmarks of what might be considered "professional-looking" in this context. So it's important to consider the needs of the situation.
Again, bottom line, for this score in particular, four bars per system works well.
In reply to "Professional-looking" is… by Marc Sabatella
Good points, all! Appreciated! By "professional-looking" I meant "It's going into a book and I'd rather not have the very last measure dangling alone at the conclusion like a burst appendix when the thing's an even 72 bars of mostly eighth notes."
Am I wrong, or will the width of my humble 3- and 6-note groups vary depending on the intervals chosen? A scalar line of three eighth notes like d - e - f will produce one width, while a Jaco-like hop of a 17th (g - high c) might produce a measure two cm wider. (I get it that a bass's high c at the 17th fret has 4 extra staff lines that will require more space from its neighbor notes to the right; likewise for accidentals.)
In reply to Good points, all!… by basstorius
Right, the single measure by itself isn't good. I was more talking about the possibility that having some lines of 33 and some of 5 might in some cases look better than assuming all would be 4. In this particular example, though, I think all four works quite well.
It's true and correct that ledger lines can require a little more space, so can accidentals and other markings. plus of course the rhythms are not identical in all measures. So luckily, you don't get stuck in the definitely unprofessional situation of having the barlines all line up between systems. Again, done for lead sheets sometimes, but definitely a no-no and to be avoided in other contexts, as it makes to easy to get lost.
This is exactly the same thing I'm trying to do - create a lead sheet or a chord chart for a simple 12 bar blues progression. I would like it to have four bars per line - something I thought would be simple. I'm brand new to this software so I'll try some of the formatting suggestions noted.
Update: The Format - System Breaks option did the trick.