Score auto-arrange feature?

• Oct 22, 2011 - 11:02
S5 - Suggestion

I have been trying for the last 15 minutes to get a 4th pesky sistem that only holds the last measure of the score from the 2nd page on to my 1st page.

I did change the "Page fill threshold" value to 100% and the "Last system fill threshold" to 100% as well, but that pesky 4th system from my score keeps on dispicably staying on the 2nd page when I only want 1 page for it.

Could you guys implement some kind of a force "1 page only" mode for choir templates?

I have even tried modifying the Layout Page settings scale space to a lesser value and the 4th system STILL stays on the 2nd page...........

Why doesn't it just simmetrically auto-fill the 1st page? I mean, even if I lower the scale space to a very small value, the 4th system is STILL on the 2nd page even though it has more than enough space to fit under the last system........

Here's a screenshot.

Attachment Size
aaaahhh.jpg 12.68 KB


You can use the the { key to 'shrink' the lenth of a (number of) measure(s)
You could play with upper, lower, left and right parge margins, also with the distance between staves/systems

I have no problem getting 4 systems of 4 staves (a full SATB Score) onto one page when using s scale of 1.025mm per spatium. Had to increas the lyrics after that though (to 10pt), to make it readable again...

You can create your own '4 systems per pages SATB choir' leadsheat that way.

I would rather like MuseScore to do that for me since it's so complicated to get the best. I mean, how in the world AM I going to know how to maximize the visibility of the score I just wrote? I'm not a master of all of the different viewing vectors that MuseScore provides...

And I don't want to shrink the length of a number of measures, I don't want my score looking odd, I want it looking simmetric.

Also, page margin editing is not a good idea because the reason we have page margins is so that someone can hold it in their hand and read it and for it to be a lot easier for the eye to read, hence, I will not be compromising page margins.

Oh WOW, I just tried the 1.025 per spatium setting that I had tried before but thought that the 4th system didn't come into alignment with the other 3 because the image in the viewer to the right of that setting bar wasn't showing any big differences... I have had the same thing fool me before and now, I got fooled by it twice... oh snap!

That viewer should be a real-time display of what's happening to the score and also show when the 2nd page is dissapearing because of alignment so that the user can tell that their extra system just got into alignment, for that is the precise reason why I got fooled the 1st time a year or so ago and now... AAAAAAhhhh, I'm making a fool of myself here...

Should I write a new feature request on this Viewer issue or is it enough to leave it here?

But still even so, with 1.025 per spatium and the other two setting set on 100%, my score doesn't fill the whole page now that it has all measures on one page, it just stays there looking odd.

Is there some other setting that I don't know of that I have to work with in order to get maximum readability of my score on just one page?

Visibility and readibility is SO important!

That's why I was asking for some kind of built-in feature or button switch that would enable one's score to auto-arrange itself for maximum visibility.

Sibelius already has it!

The developers on this website only have to watch the promos for Sibelius versions that come up in order to see what else they should implement to make their users work even easier!

Attachment Size
likethis.jpg 8.61 KB

What's a vertical frame? :|

See, this is the kind of stuff that I'm talking about, because that feature is not there it makes everything so complicated and wastes time... I remember having a thread about this exact same thing a year ago or so... It induced me to the same confusing stuff as it has now.

At least my "cry" will be heard by developers who will be able to implement this feature in future revisions, simply because ALL scores need to be readable and visible, not only choir ones... That's why we write scores, isn't it? So we can pass on music in a readable and exact format, because merely "by ear" turns into confusion.

The reason the score doesn't fit on one page after you reduced the space setting is that you told MuseScore not to do that - that's what setting the page fill threshold to 100% accomplished. Set it back to the default and it works as you say.

I would also recommend you post your questions in the forum rather than directly to the issue tracker. Wait until you get feedback to verify if there is an actual bug or missing feature or if, as in this case, it is a somple misunderstanding, and *then* post a bug report or feature request as appropriate.

That's true, but, shouldn't Page fill threshold mean it fills the page?

I think it's more like: "What does this function do, it's name is kind of unclear".

I wish MuseScore would just do everything automatically which it doesn't so far.

MuseScore can't read minds, so doing everything automatically is impossible. Some might want their music made smaller than they actually specified if that helps it fit pn a page, others might not. As it is, you can specify the exact size of the space between lines, the exact size of space between staves, the exact size of space between systems - it's actually extremely straightforward, although admittedly hard to discover. And indeed, a function that says, "do whatever you need to in order to fit this on X pages" would be nice - but no susbstitute for the much better control we have now, where we are in charge of whether this is done by changing the line space, staff space, or system space (or the measure stretch).

Anyhow, the key word in the phrase "page fill threshold" is the last word - "threshold". That is, you aren't telling MuseScore how full you want the page - you are specifying the threshold at which page fill kicks in. By setting it to 100%, you are saying, only stretch things put to fill the page if it is already 100% full. The default is something like 70%, which tells MuseScore to stretch things out to fill the page if it is at least 70% full.

It's obvious that MuseScore can't read minds, but what I would like is an over-all readability slider so I can scale overall readability and visibility of the score I create, and not have to deal with dozens of individual buttons...

Not to mention the fact that the score should automatically scale as "as-readable-as-possible" by default.

What's the point of having an ultra-perfect score that is not scaled enough for people to see?

I have experienced this with MuseScore before where I spent hours writing a choir score only to find out afterwards that it was not readable.

You have to admit that everybody likes easy to use software. Easy to use doesn't mean rudimentary, it just means easy to use.


Again, I agree that an option to have MuseScore attempt to make some intelligent decisions when you give an explicit command to fit a given number of measures on a page makes sense. But absolutely no way should MuseScore do any such thing by default. It provides settings for line space, staff space, system space, and stretch factor for a *reason*, and those settings should absolutely be honored unless the user explicitly chooses to let MuseScore take a crack at overriding them. Otherwise people would be screaming that they have no control over the layout of their scores. It is up to each template to choose reasonable defaults, but if you don't like the deaults chosen, you are free to create you own customized template.

I didn't say that people should have NO control over that automatic feature, it's not auto by it's own mind, it's auto if the user decides to trigger the slider, which is what I wrote in an other post of mine, but because there's no indenting here, this is TERRIBLE to follow for everyone and just creates loads of clutter and useless typing........

Would you nice web developers PLEASE implement indenting on this part of the website? Please??? :D

Thank you!

For the record, I was responding to this statement of yours just above: "Not to mention the fact that the score should automatically scale as "as-readable-as-possible" by default." This is the part I would absolutely disagree with. Not *by default*, but sure, if you hit a button telling it you'd like MuseScore to try to make some reasonable guesses as to what you might like to see other than the actual settings of the layout parameters, why not - that could be a nice bonus feature to see some day.

Well, that setting be by default with an other slider to zoom things out if the user REALLY wants it to.

I mean, the reason we have notation software is so that people can read scores clearly, because, before, hand-writing them was a total mess...

Now that we have music notation software, is mission is to make scores as readable as possible adjusting themselves to the size of the scores, not be small and tiny.

Who likes a perfect but hard to read tiny score Marc?

Who said anything about tiny scores? As far as I have seen, the defaults already produce appriately sized scores in most cases. If you have issues with the defaults sizes used by a specific template, why not simply suggest the defauls be changed to something more appropriate? Is there a specific template you think is creating tiny scores? I would say the original lead sheet template is one such example, although it is absolutely true that many professionally published fakebooks are done that way. So I simply contributed a separate Jazz Lead Sheet template that used the larger size more typical in handwritten fakebooks, and the professionally published fakebooks that emulate hat style. No additinal features wee needed; just a more appropriate template.

It's so hard to create a template man... except for a piano score, I don't see the other ones that I'm doing using space up well enough.

Again, the standard would be Sibelius. Just have a look at their scores and their basic readability design.

How is hitting "save as" hard? That's all a template is - an ordinary score that happens to be saved into the templates folder. If you have a score that has the sizes the way you like it, just save it into the templates folder.

But again, the question is, are there particular templates you think don't already look good? Advising people to "look at Sibelius" doesn't help. I've looked at Sibelius many times, but don't understand what *specifically* you are complaining about. Which *specific* template in MuseScore do you think is too small, and compared to which *specific* template in Sibelius?

SATB default template in MuseScore compared to the SATB default template in Sibelius.

MuseScore can beat ANYTHING on the notation software market if they don't compromise towards quality!

So take the MuseScore SATB template, modify it to your likings and use it henceforth. If you then upload it here, the developers might decide to add it to the next version, just like they did with Marc's Jazz lead sheat.
And even if they don't, others might get it from here and use it too.

Status (old) active closed

For the same reasons highlighted here, I close this "issue". Discuss it here or preferably on the forum and open an issue when it's sorted out if necessary.

And no, there will not be indenting in this part of the website. It's not a discussion area. Use the forum.

My point is that it's hard to do that, MuseScore should do that by default.

There are just way too many individual vectors that need to be "played with" ...

Last try at this.

See attachments.

I'm desperately trying to get the 7th system on the 2nd page.

I have tried to set page fill to 100% and lastsistem fill 100%.

I don't want to lower the "spatium" setting from page properties as that will lower the readability of the whole score when the only thing that I want is to get that 7th system on the second page.

I don't want to compromise overall score readability just because of one system, this is why I was asking for some kind of score auto-arrange feature.

In the case of photo page fill 100%, it would be nice if the 1st page would just auto-adjust so that the 3 systems are more equally displayed, and the 7th system just to get on the 2nd page. I mean, it FITS there, doesn't it?

Shouldn't page fill mean that it fills the page to the maximum possible? The settings just don't do that, they do something else that is just useless and confusing for me...

If the thing says "Page fill 100%" then that means it's going to fill the page 100%, right? The setting doesn't do that.

This has been confusing to me since I first used pre 1.0 MuseScore (can't remember which version it was).

Attachment Size
1.jpg 19.14 KB
pagefill100%.png 11.84 KB
lastsistemfill100%.png 11.54 KB

1. Please don't edit a previous post to attach things. Just put them with the latest post.
2. The second and third attachments aren't working. Possibly because of the % characters.

This would require 4 systems of 4 staves to fit on one page.
Either decrease the spatium (IMHO 1.025 is the theshold, increase fontsize to max. 10pt after that)
or increase page lenght, or decrease space between staves/system/lyrics etc.

Oh great, how was I supposed to know that......... this is so time-wasting....

I already deleted the screenshots.......

How was I also know that I shouldn't edit a previous post to attach things?


As lasconic says, this discussion doesn't belong here in the tracker. Start a new thread in the forum, and I'll be happy to explain my understanding of page fill works (as I said before, the key word is *threshold*) and how to get the desired results.