Need help with fingerings and trills

• May 27, 2012 - 22:05

I don't quite know what I am doing wrong, but the menu-item "fingering" functions for me as follows (version 1.2. MacOS 10.6):

I choose a fingering and it appears right under the note it is going with. So I move it above or below the note as is the custom (this is for a violin part, I don't know what the figures with rings around them are for). Then I close the file and re-open the following day when I continue the work. In the mean time the fingerings have wandered away from where I dropped them.

Similar things happen with trills. Occasionally they get "forgotten" (I have then to delete the note and re-type it before I can attach a trill again. They do move occasionally too, but less far and less often then the fingerings. At least they scale now to smaller size staffs, I was very happy about that when I got access to version 1.2.

Any ideas what I am doing wrong?


Comments

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

See score below. I split the file recently because all 4 movements were too unwieldy. I am trying to go out of my way to make this a) accurate, b) readable for performance.

The fingerings are in bar 4 and again bars 39/40. When I opened the file just now they had slipped away from the note heads; they used to be at the commonly used distance to the notes. What it will look like when you open it is anybody's guess. Over time (over several openings, savings, edits -- mostly to add more text at the end of the file) they had moved quite a distance both vertically and horizontally. I find this at the end of a movement when I go over the file proof reading. So I fix the problems, only to find them (partially) unfixed next time I open the file again.

To set them I generally drag them from the palette to the note. It will then be placed almost right on top of the note and I drag it manually (i.e. by the touchpad) away from it a little bit.

Attachment Size
Onslow sonate 6:1.mscz 76.83 KB

In reply to by azumbrunn

Yep, I can reproduce that problem just as described. On a hunch, I tried setting the staff size to normal, and the problem went away (which explains why everyone doesn't see this). Looks like the manual positioning offset that MuseScore calculates and stores in the file is not taking into account the "small" property.

I believe the fingering has been largely re-done for 2.0 to produce better results right off the bat with less need for manual repositioning. But the nightly build is a bit too unstable right now for me to successfully test to see whether this problem has gone away. At some point maybe in a few days, you try installing a nightly build and see if this has already been fixed, and if not, file a bug report in the issue tracker.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks for trying this out for me. I'll have to check (and correct) the file before converting it to Pdf for printing. Not sure I have the technical chops for a nightly build, but I will try.

It is true that the small staff still has problems with scaling. Before version 1.2. (i.e. before I had a sufficiently new OS) only staff and notes were scaled down, all other add-ons (dynamics, ornaments, articulations, hairpins...) were full size--looked rather funny and except for text one could not scale it down manually.

Now with 1.2. dynamics are scaled down with exception of the full words (f, p, pp etc. scaled down, crescendo, dolce etc. not scaled down), trills are scaled down, but still not hairpins (open too wide for smaller staff) and slurs (should have thinner lines for smaller staff). I am hoping 2.0 will do this more consistently. And also that it will work with our present OS as we will be stuck with it for some time...

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.