4 MS issues when attempting to re-create an old score
Windows 10, MS 3.4.2
I checked these issues in 3.5 alpha but they were also present there. At least, no crashes occurred in the process.
I've listed them all in this single post; assuming they would be considered for correction please advise if making them four separate posts would be better.
1) The source score has the Timpani in 3-4 time with everything else in 9-8. There is a one-beat pick-up measure. If the Local time signature for the Timpani is changed to 3-4 at the very beginning, an error is created that isn't revealed until the score is saved & re-opened. (Which is why I put it on the next measure.) On re-opening, an error message appears that the Timpani first measure is corrupted because the one-beat pick-up can't accommodate the 3-4 time signature.
>Is there a way to either A) accommodate the time signature in the pick-up measure or else B) provide a warning message right away rather than when the score is re-opened? In this particular case a work-around is not necessary because Page 1 won't show any empty staves, but one can see where it might be an issue with some other score.
2) There is a key change at the beginning of measure 59 (2 sharps to 5 sharps). This results in 6 sharps for the English Horn, which (I assume) is why the source score changes the English Horn part to 3 sharps instead of 6 and uses accidentals as necessary to make it easier for the E Horn player and the conductor. When I attempt to change the English Horn local key signature to 3 sharps in MS (to match the source score, see attached PNG), MS responds by changing it to 4 sharps instead of 3.
>Is there some music theory or technical MS code reason for this response? Seems like a bug.
3) The source score calls for a grace note triplet (see attached PNG) in the Piccolo part at measure 58. MS does not respond to tuplet creation when a grace note is selected. I can work around this by creating 3 normal grace notes and positioning a "3" over them.
>I've seen a few comments on this issue in the forum, but it doesn't look like any action is being taken.
4) Following the previous comment, the "after" grace notes mentioned above do not permit Staff Text to be added. That's why measure 58 has invisible rests, to allow the "3" to be positioned above the fake triplets. However, any change in the measure layout and the 3 can become mis-positioned, and the work-around is a bit clumsy.
> "Before" tuplets allow for Staff Text, I would think a similar program change would allow it for "after" text.
As always, thanks,
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Wagner makes me want to invade Poland.mscz | 101.01 KB |
| E Horn key change.PNG | 34.53 KB |
| grace note triplet.PNG | 20.1 KB |
Comments
I think problem #1 stems from the quaver anacrusis in 3/4 being a different duration to the quaver anacrusis in 9/8. It doesn't really make sense to have 3/4 against 9/8 for that fractional bar. For example at a tempo of 120 beats per minute you would have 240 quavers per minute for the 3/4 stave and 360 shorter duration quavers per minute for the 9/8 stave. So that 3/4 quaver anacrusis is 33% longer duration than the quaver anacrusis in the 9/8 stave. However, we can guess what the composer/arranger meant even if his maths were a bit flaky. You could make the 9/8 at the start of the timp part invisible and add the 3/4 as an image and then make the 3/4 in the second bar invisible.
Looking through the score I don't really see why the timp part needs to be in 3/4 but perhaps there are more notes to add that would show why it is necessary.
In reply to I think problem #1 stems… by SteveBlower
Regarding problem #2. Be aware that key signatures are always specified in Musescore relative to concert pitch. So for the English Horn the transposed part will have one fewer flat or one more sharp than the concert pitch key signature that needs to be applied. If you apply a 2 sharp keys sig. you get three sharps in the transposed part.
In reply to Regarding problem #2. Be… by SteveBlower
Thanks, that one is fixed!
Since you brought it up, I seem to remember a recommendation that any such key signature changes be done with Concert Pitch enabled so as to avoid this issue.
In reply to Thanks, that one is fixed!… by marty strasinger
Key signatures can be added with the score displayed as written or in concer pitch. But as long as you remember that key signatures are always specified in relation to concert pitch you will not encounter the problem. In the general case the score will have non-transposing and (differently) transposing instruments but you will be adding only one key signature. Specifying this at concert pitch avoids the complication of having to specify which transposition is used in the stave you are applying the key sig. to.
I also see no point in having the timp. part in a different meter.
It's one thing to recreate an old score, and quite another to perpetuate what might be inaccurate, or at least not standardized.
Maybe I'm not remembering properly. I thought that in performance, grace notes don't really have a time value. I.E. played quickly. I'm not sure I see the need to try to make them a triplet. I mean, would a player play those 3 notes differently? But again, it might be the problem of recreating an old score.
But what do I know.
3) I would say it's not musically meaningful to put a triplet indication on grace notes. I mean, it literally doesn't change the meaning of those notes one bit. Maybe at some point in history it might have been trendy to add numbers to indicate the number of grace notes, but that isn't done currently. I would say if you want that, or any other non-standard marking that doesn't affect playback, the current method of adding the symbol manually still makes sense to me.
4) Actually, no grace notes truly allow staff text to be added. They are added to the "segment", which exists only for the main note itself. That's why, whether you select a grace note before or a grace note after, when you press Ctrl+T, the text is added above the main note. You would need to position it manually. You could add the text as fingering, that's about the only text type that is actually attached to an individual note. So, if you want to display the 3, try adding it as a fingering to the middle note. That actually works pretty convincingly.
In reply to 3) I would say it's not… by Marc Sabatella
Using fingering to get the "3" worked, thanks for the suggestion.
Most of the other responses relate to "modernizing" the score, which is fine in some scenarios. But it would be a shame to have to admit that MS sometimes cannot recreate a period piece as-written. In this particular instance, I'm trying to do that as much as possible. My only admission to modern engraving being that I'm not putting the voice staves between the viola and 'cello staves.
In reply to Using fingering to get the … by marty strasinger
I agree, it should be possible to reproduce things that are non-standard today. And ideally it shouldn't take too much effort - hopefully, not as much as it took to create that score to begin with using traditional engraving techniques :-). Here, I'd say the fingering method satisfies that goal. I'm not so sure I understand the issue with the local time signature, though. Can you give precise steps to reproduce the problem? Corruptions are always bugs, and corruptions where we have precise steps to reproduce the problem starting from a score that isn't already corrupt are the ones we are most able to fix.
In reply to I agree, it should be… by Marc Sabatella
Referencing the already provided score,
Starting with all instruments in the 9-8 time signature in the first partial measure, and the Timpani showing 3-4 time signature in the 2nd measure-
(FYI the first measure has had it's duration changed using Measure Properties to "Actual" 1-8 time signature.)
From the Time Signatures palette, CTRL+Drag the 3-4 time signature onto the Timpani first measure time signature.
Result: MS accepts the change, Timpani now has 3-4 t.s. in the first measure. The other staves remain at 9-8.
Save the score and re-open it: an error message window presents, indicating the corruption in the Timpani line- Click "Show Details", result: "Measure 1, staff 25 incomplete. Expected: 1/8; Found: 3/16"
FYI, it won't let you delete the 3-4 t.s. in the second measure unless you delete all the timpani staff notes.
I hope this helps,
In reply to Referencing the already… by marty strasinger
See my earlier reply. The quaver (1/8th note) is not the same length (in milliseconds or whatever) in a 9/8 bar (measure) when compared to a 3/4 one (9 quavers in a 9/8 bar take the same time as the 6 quavers in a 3/4 bar). Notes and bar lines have to line up with timed events. According to the original score the timp player has to start counting a few milliseconds before the start of all the other players' parts. In other words the original notation is wrong! When you move the 3/4 time sig. Muse score tries its best and tells you what you have entered is invalid - i.e. the score is corrupt as the first measure in the timp part has a different length from all the others. You can only reproduce the wrongly notated original by faking it.
In reply to See my earlier reply. The… by SteveBlower
I think the concern is not the technical correctness of what you’ve saying. The issue is that MS lets you do it.
In reply to I think the concern is not… by marty strasinger
Yes, that is a good point. If the actions that lead to score corruption could be caught and disallowed before they cause grief we would have fewer "my score is broken" reports here. An entry in the issue tracker could be useful to document a reproducible way to generate a corruption.
In reply to Yes, that is a good point. … by SteveBlower
Just waiting for someone other than me to confirm this. Once confirmed I would think any fix is acceptable, whether it’s a magic way around the problem you defined, or a pop-up message saying you can’t do that and keeping it from happening. The program is smart enough to identify the problem when the score is opened; I wonder if there is a technical reason that it can’t be caught as it occurs?
In reply to Just waiting for someone… by marty strasinger
Well, consider it confirmed. Even before your previous post I tried adding a 3/4 local time sig. to your example score and saw the corruption. I was fiddling with turning the anacrusis into a semiquaver triplet and trying to delete the first semiquaver to make the bar duration correct but that didn't work. But anyway, I am your witness. What you (we) did produces a corrupt measure.
In reply to Well, consider it confirmed… by SteveBlower
Thanks! I’ll enter it in the issue tracker tomorrow.
In reply to Just waiting for someone… by marty strasinger
Well, certainly MuseScore shouldn't have created a corruption. In theory we should be able to allow any combination of time signatures to coexist, since we use fractions for all the calculations. But I guess the problem is that while it could normally be OK to combine 1/8 with 3/4, or combine 9/8 with 3/4, there is probably no way to combine a 1/8 portion of a 9/8 measure some equivalent portion of a 3/4 measure. It would need to be 1/9 the duration of the 3/4 measure, which would require one eighth note of a triplet to represent, if I'm doing the math correctly.
While there might be some cases where that math could work out, perhaps we should just disallow adding local time signatures to measures that don't match their stated duration.
In reply to Well, certainly MuseScore… by Marc Sabatella
Entered in Issue Tracker:
https://musescore.org/en/node/305320
In reply to Entered in Issue Tracker:… by marty strasinger
or #305320: Entering local time signature causes score corruption if incompatible with global time signature (entered as [#305320])
In reply to or #305320: Entering local… by Jojo-Schmitz
I just encountered another similar corruption in the same score and will update the Issue Tracker accordingly.
Action: on a score that opened with no error messages, at Measure 99 CTRL+Drag a 9-8 time signature from the Palette to the Oboe I part, and repeat for the Oboe II and Oboe III parts. (This is to add local time signature changes required in the source score.) MS accepts the changes. Save and close the score.
Please note that at Measure 99, the Oboes had been previously changed from 9-8 global to 3-4 local time signatures at Measure 91. The action here was returning them to the previous 9-8 time signature.
Result: when the score is re-opened, a corruption error message occurs.
Summarizing the Details of the corruption message:
Measure 100, staff 8 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Same for measure 100 staves 20 and 21.
Measure 101, same error for staves 8, 20 & 21
Measure 102, same error for staves 8, 20 & 21
Please note that previously (Measure 91) a large number of other local time signature changes were made, as per the source score. The easiest way to accomplish was to add a Global 9-8 time signature at that measure, (since the Timpani was being changed from 3-4 to 9-8 at the same place that the Oboes were changed from 9-8 to 3-4) and then change the Oboes.
The attached "Oboe key change.png" shows the measure where the Measure 99 key change takes place and also includes the IMSLP document number should someone need to access the complete source score.
In reply to I just encountered another… by marty strasinger
For "Oboe key change.png." please use instead "measure 99 key change.png."
In reply to For "Oboe key change.png."… by marty strasinger
I'm trying to reproduce this corruption. No luck so far. Maybe I didn't do it right. Here's what I did:
1. Opened your "before corruption" score.
2. It only goes to measure 97,so I added a blank measure. Used the CTRL+drag to add 9/8 signature to oboes 1,2,3.
3. Save and close. Close MS.
4. Open MS and the saved score and no corruption.
I also did it by select measure, CTRL+click 9/8. Seemed faster than drag. Also no corruption.
In reply to I'm trying to reproduce this… by bobjp
The only difference I note is that I appended four blank measures to the uncorrupt version, not one, before CTRL+dragging the 9-8 time sig.
Also I did it twice to make sure of the exact duplication of the steps, same results both times.
In reply to The only difference I note… by marty strasinger
Also it may be significant to add the new local time signature at measure 99.
In reply to Also it may be significant… by marty strasinger
I also tried adding 3 or 4 measures, also alternating between 3/4 and 9/8 in the oboe parts. What have I missed?
In reply to I also tried adding 3 or 4… by bobjp
I followed the instructions and when I reloaded the file I got:
Bar 99, stave 8 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 99, stave 20 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 99, stave 21 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 100, stave 8 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 100, stave 20 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 100, stave 21 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 101, stave 8 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 101, stave 20 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 101, stave 21 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 102, stave 8 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 102, stave 20 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Bar 102, stave 21 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
My set up is OS: Windows 10 (10.0), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 3.4.2.9788, revision: 148e43f
Do you @bobjp have a different version/OS perhaps?
...
Update: Also get the same corruption with
OS: Windows 10 (10.0), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 3.5.0.11614, revision: 1ee2fe3
In reply to I followed the instructions… by SteveBlower
Now I get the corruption. Add four measures. Change to 9/8 oboe parts.
So I followed my own instructions. Add one measure. Change measure 98 to 9/8. Got corruption. But this is what I got:
Measure 99, staff 8 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Measure 99, staff 20 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
Measure 99, staff 21 incomplete. Expected: 9/8; Found: 27/16
This is impossible. There is no measure 99.
When I got the 4 measure corruption, I didn't pay any attention to the measure numbers. But in every case, I pressed the ignore button and the score loaded just as I had saved it. It seems to me that this might be a bogus error. Shouldn't happen, but still not real.
Windows 10 Home 64 bit, build 18363, Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 3.4.2.9788, revision: 148e43f
In reply to Now I get the corruption… by bobjp
Work-arounds in place. I used Staff Text in place of actual Time Signatures, and a combination of invisible notes and not-played notes to make it work.
Please enable See Invisible, especially at measure 91 in the Oboes & Horns, for details.
It was lots of extra work, but at least A) I can continue to make progress on the score without corruption messages and B) it sounds correct.
In reply to Work-arounds in place. I… by marty strasinger
I guess I'm still wondering about the measure corruptions. Even though I finally got the error message the score opened and looked correct. I did not try to enter notes. Did you go that far with it?
In reply to I guess I'm still wondering… by bobjp
I had entered notes in the parts that switched to 3-4 time and there were no apparent issues other than the notification of the corrupted measures.
However, being trepidatious about the error message, I backed out of that and did the workarounds as noted previously so as to not get the errors. This will work until about 40 measures from where I left off, where a large number of staves are again in 3-4 mixed with 9-8. At that point doing workarounds will be too burdensome; hopefully the issue will be fixed by then.
In reply to I had entered notes in the… by marty strasinger
So you don't know for sure that there is an issue. Maybe something real caused the error message. Maybe not. Easy for me to speculate. I have no horses in this corral. I'm sceptical because the error message I got called out measures that don't exist.
In reply to So you don't know for sure… by bobjp
I'm not sure how we want to define "issue", but-
If "issue" means creating functional problems with the display or playback of the score, I haven't seen that. But just because it hasn't presented doesn't mean there isn't something "beneath the surface" that could result in many man-hours of lost work at some future point.
If "issue" means generating an erroneous error message with either incorrect measure content, or references to measures that don't exist, then yes there's an issue.
In reply to I'm not sure how we want to… by marty strasinger
We get plenty of "Musescore crashed" reports here and when the offending score is inspected the reply goes back, "That score is corrupt. Fix the corruption and all will be well." To which the OP replies "Thanks, but I don't know how the score got into that state." And a common reply to that is " Well, if you find out let us know". Thereafter is silence...
Here we have a set of well documented actions from a user who does know "how the score got into that state" that reproducibly result in a corrupt score. Whether that corruption eventually results in a crash is immaterial as it probably depends on what further actions are made with the score and the crash may not show up until some other specific but unrelated conditions arise during playback or export or editing. The important thing is to find the source of corruption rather than looking hard at the conditions when the crash occurs. With luck reports like these, rare as they are, will help developers work out how to eliminate at least one source of score corruption and hence lessen the frequency of "Musescore crashed" reports.
Perhaps there needs to be an [EPIC] issue for "Actions that cause score corruption" so they don't get lost.
In reply to We get plenty of "Musescore… by SteveBlower
New test with before corruption score:
Question: How could MuseScore conclude that a measure that doesn't exist yet, be incomplete, and one and a half measures long? And when the measure later exists with the proper number of beats, still be tagged as incomplete?
Conclusion: Bogus error report. What caused it? If Muse score lets me put the proper amount of notes in what it thinks is an incomplete measure (too long at the same time), who's to say that somewhere in this score there isn't a measure that is indeed improper. This score has many places where certain lines trade off between 3/4 and 9/8. Would the corruption error ever go away as you worked to complete it? No idea. If it is bogus, does it matter if it goes away? It might depend on your goal for this score. If you were able to complete the score, would the error keep you from doing what ever it was you wanted to do with it? Yes, the error should be investigated and fixed. Of course. I just found the error interesting and have spent way too much time on it. Right now, I have time.
Observation: Notation techniques have never been standard from country to country. Much less century to century. Or even publisher to publisher. And now, we add software to software. I understand the desire to be historically accurate. But how faithful is the score you are working from to the original? Back then, would a publisher in another part of Europe done it the same way?
In reply to New test with before… by bobjp
All I can say to this is:
-I’m trying to be as faithful to the original as possible, and
-IMSLP has two different scans of the score and both are consistent with the 3-4 vs 9-8 time signatures
And FWIW I don’t want to be caught in the position of having second-guessed Mr. Wagner’s intentions regarding music he spent years of work on.
In reply to All I can say to this is: -I… by marty strasinger
Of course, it needs to be looked in to. It is just interesting to me that the meter changes seem to work in MuseScore regardless of the error. It will be interesting to find out what is causing it. I didn't look that closely, is there anywhere that triplets or dupe-lets used?
In reply to Of course, it needs to be… by bobjp
Yes- if you check the strings you’ll see there are triplets, quintuplets and sextuplets.
In reply to We get plenty of "Musescore… by SteveBlower
Would be enough already to put this into the issue tracker rather leaving int here as a forum topic
In reply to Would be enough already to… by Jojo-Schmitz
I will try to make time to start another score with 9-8 time signature and see if an otherwise blank score has the same issues if a 3-4 t.s. is added. I’m curious if the triplets, quintuplets and sextuplets contribute to the perceived corruption.
In reply to I will try to make time to… by marty strasinger
Creating a new score with an initial t.s. of 9-8, I added various new elements until Test 14 produced a corruption message very similar to what we've been seeing with the score that originated this issue.
Test 13, no corruption message; Test 14 corruption message.
"For measures (17 through 41), the message is "staff 2 incomplete. Expected: 3/4; Found: 2/2"
The difference between the two is that at Measure 17, the upper piano parts upper staff was changed to 3-4 while the lower staff was left at 9-8.
I'll update the Issue Tracker entry with this information.
In reply to Creating a new score with an… by marty strasinger
I have updated the Issue Tracker entry with these same comments:
I was able to (with a large amount of effort) remove the score corruptions and time signature issues. After deleting the staves that had corruption warnings when the score is loaded, I created new staves to replace the deleted ones and re-populated the content. (A bit of work, as the score is presently about 80 pages/240 measures.)
The work-around was- When it is necessary to change the local time signature for a limited number of staves, it is best to continue with note entry on the staves that do not require a time signature change and do not make the local time signature change at that point. Once several pages of content have been entered on lines in the original TS, then one can go back to where the local time signature change needs to be made, make the local TS change, and continue with note entry in the new TS lines.
My theory (I don't know if this makes sense from a coding perspective) is that when a local TS change is made, there must be enough "free space" (or "tics"?) after that measure to allow MS to completely implement the TS change. If the score ends (no new empty measure available) too soon, MS isn't able to completely implement the local TS change.