Triple augmentation dot
b8fe9e6, from scratch:
Enter a crotchet, click it and press Triple augmentation dot
Press N and enter a quaver note;
Expected result
Obtained result
Wrong steps? Already reported?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| X dot.mscz | 3.02 KB |
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
I believe this is expected, and has nothing to do with the triplet dot. The same thing happens if, for instance, you enter three eighths and then a quarter note. MuseScore 3 is automatically enforcing the "rule" of notation that suggests you break up notes that overlap beat 3 in 4/4 time using ties. That is, the following is considered incorrect notation:
It is instead supposed to be notated as follows:
MuseScore 3 now enforces this by automatically correcting rhythms entered "incorrectly" according to this rule. Although I do appreciate that this makes it easier to write more readable rhythms without the need to understand the rules, I personally am still somewhat uncomfortable with this, especially without a way to switch it off. it will be interested to me to see if we get users thanking us or complaining...
In reply to I believe this is expected, by Marc Sabatella
I do hope this is true.
Since I first started using MS a number of years ago I requested, a few times that ties be used, especially over the middle of the bar.
I haven't been notating much over the last while so I will take another look.
At any rate, I MUCH prefer that the visual notation clearly emphasize the beats in a bar.
In reply to I do hope this is true. Since by xavierjazz
For the record, I of course also prefer that correct notation be used. I am just uncomfortable with having MuseScore change what I am entered. I know how to break up notes with ties when necessary and do this myself. In the cases where I enter a note across the middle of a measure, it is for very good reason - maybe it's an example for an educational worksheet where I am trying to demonstrate the "wrong" way, maybe I'm entering the note that way with the intent of making it invisible for spacing purposes, maybe it's just a piece in which there is a natural division of beats *other* than the standard one, maybe it's because I am testing some bit of functionality, etc. Granted, in the grand scheme of things, these are still the minority of cases, and hopefully it will remain easy enough to override this. But this still strikes me as the sort of thing we are likely to hear complaints about if we do this by default with no way to turn it off. Time will tell I guess.
In reply to I believe this is expected, by Marc Sabatella
Many thanks.
I would prefer a switch, I do not know where, maybe here
I am going to report, regards
In reply to Many thanks. I would prefer a by Shoichi
For the record... I'm not a fan of a switch... If it's not desirable by the majority, then we remove it. If not, we keep it. A middle ground would be to deactivate it for computer keyboard entry only.
In reply to For the record... I'm not a by [DELETED] 5
If the function can't be disabled, and the transcribers goal is accurate reproduction of a historic document (warts and all), they would be unable to do so.
In reply to If the function can't be by marty strasinger
I acknowledge that accurate reproduction is important to many, but it seems to me that time moves on and I believe that production is more important than reproduction. New music doesn't have the privilege of having been heard before. Also, quality production when sight-reading depends on having the simplest notation possible.
My interest is in making the music as easy to understand as possible and in my experience the bar is best broken into halves.
I am struck by Marc's remark that: "Granted, in the grand scheme of things, these are still the minority of cases, and hopefully it will remain easy enough to override this."
I agree that an override is important, but I am more struck by the acknowledgement that "Granted, in the grand scheme of things, these are still the minority of cases, ...."
I put music in front of many different musicians here in Toronto and environs. In the past, if I did not "break" the bar there would be an inevitable discussion and rehearsal time consumed, or, more serious, uncertainties in performance. So I just bit the bullet and changed them all (at least all I would notice after some many hours just getting it to that state). I have no longer allowed MS to make that decision, I just write it properly.
I just want it clearer. I plead for clarity. :)
In reply to I acknowledge that accurate by xavierjazz
Not sure, but I think you may have misunderstood me. I absolutely agree that in the majority of cases you want the note split to clarify beat 3, even if I prefer doing it correctly myself rather than entering it wrong and having the program change it. To be perfectly clear: it is already trivially easy to enter this correctly. You don't need this autocorrect feature to get correct rhythms, any more than you need a spell checker to get correct spelling.
What I said is a minority are the cases where I explicitly want to *break* the rule. I gave several examples, but admitted that even those examples don't add up to much. Still, it is important to have the *ability* to create notation that breaks this rule. As long as it remains possible to override this autocorrect after the fact, I won't object too strenuously.
In reply to I acknowledge that accurate by xavierjazz
There is a difference between prioritizing production over reproduction and making reproduction close to impossible. I agree that this feature ought to be able to be turned off.
Another point is that this rule makes sense in general but it has plenty of exceptions. It requires the judgement of the engraver or else a rather complicated system to avoid errors. Example:
![example.png]()
Of course the rule applies in principle to all meters in an analogous manner (e.g. in 6/8 you should emphasize beat 4--the exception analogous to the example above being hemiolas). Is Musescore 3 applying it across the meters or just selectively for 4/4?
In reply to I acknowledge that accurate by xavierjazz
I agree with Marc.
A primary point to keep in mind is that MuseScore is a graphics program, albeit a highly specialised one. That said, if the program 'auto-corrects' user entry according to an algorithm built into the code--no matter how 'correct' that might be according to the current 'authority' in music notation (Gould is the one I'm thinking of in general; I disagree with her at least as often as I don't, just to give you an idea)--there absolutely needs to be an override easily available to users who (a) know what they're doing and why, or (b) just don't like computers telling them how to live their lives. ;o)
A reasonable analogy can be made with MS Word: The auto-correct spelling and grammar and style functions can (thank Bog!) be turned off, if the user knows where to look for those controls (buried deep in the bowels of the UI). Or look at 'smart phones': How many times have you thumbed something in a text message and had the damned phone 'correct' it into something nonsensical? It took me days to figure out how stop my Blackberry turning 'il' (the 3rd-person singular masculine pronoun in French) into 'ill' or 'I'll'. Grrrrrr....
(It gets worse, too: Do you want to have to argue with the steering wheel or gas pedal in your car when the on-board computer decides you aren't driving 'correctly'? Ummmm, no. Not on my watch. I've driven everything from motorcycles to tugboats for over half a century without an accident, and no 20-something kid with the ink still wet on her B.E. is going to tell me how to thread my car through the after-theatre traffic in Times Square. If I can't disable those 'helpful' features on a vehicle, I won't buy it.)
Auto-correct algorithms are based on assumptions. No set of assumptions can possibly be comprehensive enough to take into account everything a user might need or want to do. Override controls are essential.
In reply to If the function can't be by marty strasinger
Even though you cannot turn off the automatic correction, you can then go back and incorrect it - just select the first note and lengthen it.
In reply to Even though you cannot turn by Marc Sabatella
In my opinion, note entry should prefer the "correct" rhythm spelling, but note editing should not.
In reply to For the record... I'm not a by [DELETED] 5
I'm in the "let the user have the ability to do it no matter how stupid others might think it is" camp. I very much like the rules that are being developed, but as others have stated, I don't agree with all the rules. In some cases the rules don't make sense and I don't want to have to go through and "uncorrect" it every time MS thinks I'm wrong. If you have a series of similar rhythms with a variety of note it gets too time consuming to have to argue with the computer.
On the subject of rules such as those above, will it be an option make a rule to put a beam over an 1/8th note followed by a 1/16th rest followed by a 1/16th note?
In reply to I'm in the "let the user have by mike320
For the record, in time signature properties, we do allow the user to customize the beaming rules to some extent, but that particular effect is not something you can set up to do by default. Nor is it possible to force three eighth notes followed by an eighth rest to not be all beamed together, except by forcing *all* eighths to be beamed in groups of two. Definitely room for some additional improvement in how we allow for customization of these rules.
To my mind, if there were to be an option to control the "autocorrect" of notes over the beat three, this would be the place to put it - same place as the beaming options. Which makes sense, after all, because this *is* time signature-specific.