How to apply a system break in the middle of a measure
I have a very long measure (4/4 time signature full of 32nd note triplets, i.e., 48 notes in a row, many of them with accidentals). When the notes reach the margin, I would expect the next note to appear below and no bar at the end of the line to recall the measure has not finished yet, but the notes continue to be added beyond the margin. I think this is a not yet implemented feature, but is there a workaround?
Comments
Tools => Measure
Select a note, use "Split measure before selected note/rest" command, then hide the right barline.
In reply to Tools => Measure Select a… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Thanks. This works, but it is somewhat artificial, and needs to change also how measures are numbered.
In reply to Thanks. This works, but it… by fmiyara
In case you didn't know, you can fix the numbering in Measure Properties.
I could imagine, though, a single new command (maybe Shift+Enter) that did all three operations in one blow - split the measure, add the line break,, adjust the numbering.
In reply to In case you didn't know, you… by Marc Sabatella
However this solution would be sort of optimizing a workaround... there would be still two anomalous measures, instead of what is really meant: a single normal measure not fitting in the available space. It would seem better if a new system break within a measure were added, similar to hyphenation in the case ot word processors. It would be a non-persistent break, if for any editing reason it ceased to be necessary, just it would automatically revert.
In reply to However this solution would… by fmiyara
Well, considering this would be something you inserted manually, I can't see how it would ever "automatically revert". But indeed, deleting the break would need to restore the single measure. So there would need to be a new break type, at least a property set on the existing breaks.
In reply to Well, considering this would… by Marc Sabatella
<< Well, considering this would be something you inserted manually, I can't see how it would ever "automatically revert". >>
Marc, please ... you have perfectly understood.
What the O.P. says is that one should NOT insert it manually in the first place, it should come automatically when MuseScore can't fit the measure on one line. And therefore continuously move according to the changes you do in the measure content, possibly completely disappearing if no more necessary.
In reply to Well, considering this would… by Marc Sabatella
What I meant is an automatic break within a measure, to be inserted by the software in case passing the whole measure (or partial measure if too long) to the next system would cause a very unbalanced layout. This is which would revert, as happens with hyphenation. Of course the possibility to insert a manual system break within a measure would also be welcome for such cases where the user wants to control exctly where the break is located (for instance for phrasing purposes). This one would not revert automatically, indeed. But even the latter alone would be a great improvement.
In reply to What I meant is an automatic… by fmiyara
I see. I am not sure I would favor such a feature, I think such breaks should be chosen manually by the engraver. it would have to be optional and off by default, and then I would strongly urge people not to use it, as it really would take human expertise to know the most logical place to break the line. Would be a lot of work to implement a feature I think people should not use.
The manual version, though, makes sense to me.
In reply to I see. I am not sure I… by Marc Sabatella
OK. It is not a very common situation, but it certainly exists, used mainly in slow movements and in concerto cadenzas. Sometimes engravers avoid that using smaller notes, but not always. Very known examples are Mozart's Fantasy in d minor K397, measures 44 and 80; Beethoven's Sonate No. 3, Allegro, and the most famous one, the Sonate Pathétique, Grave. Other example, more modern, Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis, Praeludium and Postludium.
When the situation comes about, you miss a feature like this, either manual or automatic.
In reply to OK. It is not a very common… by fmiyara
Oh, I agree the situation exists, I'm just saying, I would not trust a computer to make an intelligent decision over the best place to make the break.
In reply to Oh, I agree the situation… by Marc Sabatella
I will not insist on automatic breaks within a measure because I recognize that the situation is not as frequent as to deserve a lot of thought for the time being, but I must say that there are many things that MuseScore does very well--MuseScore, not just a computer: a software made by humans who managed to convert into algorithms the intelligent decisions humans make most of the time, which saves a lot of time. The most noteworthy is autoplacement. While perhaps it is not infallible, it is most of the time accurate. Similarly, some rules can be detected such as the fact that breaks are usually placed in the following order of preference: at half a measure, then at a main beat, then at the end of a group of notes under a beam... and so on. Infallible? No, but most of the time yields reasonable results. The "human eye" helps to detect by simple inspection the cases where this is not the case and fix them by manual breaks.
In reply to I will not insist on… by fmiyara
The difference for me is cases where one can clearly state a rule to follow that has some specific rationale behind it, versus ones where it's really hopelessly subjective. Ten people can read Gould and all agree on how far a clef should be a key signature, etc. But give ten people the same measure too big to fit, and they'll have wildly different ideas of where to split it, and none will be able to clearly say what rule they followed to get their answer. But sure, someday something like this could start to rise in priority and we can start going into the AI business a bit more.
In reply to The difference for me is… by Marc Sabatella
Marc, however, all the scores I've seen so far with measures that don't fit the space between margins follow the rules I've stated from observation, that's the rationale. Besides, Elaine Gould's book specifically covers this on pp. 489-490 and basically my second rule agrees with hers (which doesn't deny my first rule). She doesn't seem to cover the case, frequent in cadenzas, where the division into regular beats may not make sense, that's why I added as a next level of priority dividing at the end of a beamd group. So I think it is not as difficult as you see it and a first approximation wouldn't require artificial intelligence.
Anyway, as with many automatic features in MuseScore, they are a first approximation, which in a few cases may require human tweaking but in general will yield acceptable oe even very good results. For the record, this is just a general comment, applicable to other situations where a layout decision could be automated.
As I said, I won't insist on automation. But, as I believe there is some degree of agreement that the manual feature would be useful, I'll post a feature request just in case some developer is willing to spend some time working on it.
In reply to Marc, however, all the… by fmiyara
See https://musescore.org/en/node/294016
In reply to Marc, however, all the… by fmiyara
I think there could be widespread agreement about what some of the bad places would be, but not so much in choosing between the many "good" possibilities. This is what I mean about AI.
In reply to Tools => Measure Select a… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Select only one note, not the whole chord. #voiceofexperience
This is by design I'm sure. I take advantage of putting a system at the end of a measure by clicking somewhere in the measure and pressing enter. I don't have to worry about what I click, I'll get the system break where I want it. I would hate for doing this to cause a split measure so easily.
In reply to This is by design I'm sure… by mike320
But there would be great a new item in the Breaks & spacers pallet to do this. Or rather it should be done automatically. If the content of a measure just cannot fit in the available space, a non-bar system break should be inserted, so that if any further edit changes this situation (for instance adding more notes in previous measures so that the entire measure jumps to the next system) the break is removed (as is the case with normal measures, which freely move from a system to the other if there is not enough room).
In reply to But there would be great a… by fmiyara
The shorcut allows the user to do this if that's what they want.
I have a project that I'm just getting started on that might make doing this a bit easier in the future, though this is not the purpose of my project. I believe some of my code will be able to be reused for this purpose. My project won't be done in the near future but some day. If my project is finished in less than 6 months I'll be surprised.
In reply to The shorcut allows the user… by mike320
Good luck with your project, whatever its main purpose, it surely will be a good enhancement!
There is a shortcut that can be defined for Split measure before current note/rest and also for its counterpart Join selected measures