Misplaced Treble Clef after 2-Side Repeat SIgn
I had a 2-side repeat in the middle of a line on the score and the base clef was changed to a treble clef in the first measure after the repeat by selecting the first note and then double clicking the treble clef icon in the palette. The section of score looked like the first image I am uploading. The score was saved and when I opened it later, the score appeared as in the second image, that is as if there is an empty measure beginning with an end repeat bar line and ending with the begin repeat bar line and the change of the clef is shown with the treble clef between the two repeat bar lines. I suspect this is a bug and I could not find a discussion of this issue in the forum.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| DoubleRepeatGClef1.pdf | 10.17 KB |
| DoubleRepeatGClef2.pdf | 10.91 KB |
Comments
See: #285833: Request alternate position key signature when using begin repeat sign
The second picture is not a bug in itself - this is correct according to the conventions of music notation. The clef isn't changing on each time through the first section nor the second, so it's misleading place it either before or after the repeat.
That said, if you create the clef as a "mid-measure" clef as you did - this would be correct only if there is a second clef change within the repeated section so you do need to change again on the repeat - then this should survive save/reload. So that much is a bug.
In reply to The second picture is not a… by Marc Sabatella
The first image looks like the printed score I am copying. There is a change back to bass clef four measures later within the repeat, so two times through would be G - F- G- F clefs. The repeat ends with a section break so the next section redefines the clefs anyhow but even so it would continue through to base clef on the next measure if not a section break which is what is correct.
In reply to The second picture is not a… by Marc Sabatella
Regardless of these issues upon which I replied separately is the fact that I managed to create several measures displayed as they were in the first image. The file was saved and then when opened anew, they appear as shown in the second figure. This implies perhaps different algorithms or processes generated the image when reopened that work differently than when the modifications were made on an open score prior to being saved. To me that is troublesome. It is disturbing that it does not appear they same way as it did when closed as nothing was done (by me) to change anything.
In reply to Regardless of these issues… by msokol
Yes, as I said, the fact that itnchanged on save & reload is a bug. The way it should work is that normal clefs (added to the measure not to a note within the measure) appears as in your second picture, mid-measure clefs (added to a specific note) appears in your first picture, and nothing changes on reload.
In reply to Regardless of these issues… by msokol
The problem is that rather than adding the Gould way as an option the old way was scrapped. You now have to move items around in the inspector to get it to look right. I've done it and it's rather tedious. Fortunately I've encountered few situations with a start repeat followed by a time or key signature.
In reply to The problem is that rather… by mike320
To be clear, though, it's not a conflcit between "the Gould way" and "right". It's simply a matter of two different layouts for two different situations. It's not just Gould but any professional engraver or expert in the field who will tell you that clef/key/meter changes go outside a repeat (ie, after an end repeat, or before a start repeat) if the change happens only once, but inside the repeat if there is another change within the repeat section so that you actually need the change on each repeat. The latter is less common, which is why you have encountered it less often.
The issue is our default layout used to be correct only for the less common case (two changes within the repeat section) and there was no good way to handle the more common case (one change only, happening outside the repeated section). Now it's the other way around - the more common case (where the change itself is not repeated) is handled correctly, but there is no good way to handle the less common case (two changes, happening within the repeated section).
So neither situation is ideal, we clearly need a way to produce either layout on command. Actually, in the specific case where there is an end and start repeat at the same location, there are three different layouts we need to support:
1) the usual case of a single change between the first section and the second section , which is the one we handle now
2) the less common case where the changes needed to be repeated within the first section, so they need to appear before the end repeat
3) the also less common case where the changes need to be repeated within the second section, so they need to appear after the start repeat
Gould actually recommends introducing voltas to reduce the complexity here, but even that can lead to crazy situations where in order to make the roadmap completely explicit, you need one clef before and end repeat and another after. Probably the way we'd handle that in MuseScore (if it ever came up) is just tell people to add leading space and add one of the two clefs as a symbol.
In reply to To be clear, though, it's… by Marc Sabatella
There is an abundance of pre-Gould scores that have the key and time signatures after the start repeat. I don't remember ever seeing this Gould layout on any song I ever played. To say every professional egraver... is just wrong. There is more than one acceptable way of doing things. MuseScore, in the past, has allowed for historical notation but it seems the new way is that historical notation will at best be made difficult.
In reply to There is an abundance of pre… by mike320
Would be interesting to see some of those scores, to see if in fact they do have a second change within there.
But to be clear, I meant, every professional engraver or expert today. I gather your experience is primarily with scores from IMSLP, which of course skews towards editions at least 100 years old. Gould's experience, and mine, and those of the other engravers and experts we typically consult, are more focused on the editions of today.
Still, I'd be kind of surprised if this turned out out to be one of those cases where conventions have changed, since it's pretty logical to not place something inside a repeat if it doens't in fact repeat. In particular, I can't see why anyone would deliberately move a clef from its normal place before the barline to after the barline just because there was a start repeat, unless it was to accommodate a second change. This defies all logic.
In reply to Would be interesting to see… by Marc Sabatella
I appreciate the debate on the proper or perhaps multiple ways to implement the repeats with the scale/signature changes. However I am still curious as to why the changes implemented initially resulted in the changes showing after the repeat yet when that score was saved and then reopened, the clef change was displayed with what you are calling the Gould version. If Gould was desired, why was this not displayed when the clef change was first made. The clef was inserted within the measure after the repeat and inside the measure where it was anchored to the first note in that measure and the score looked like the printed version of the Haydn music which is definitely historical.
In reply to I appreciate the debate on… by msokol
As I said, the fact that one notation turns into another on reload is a bug, plain and simple.
Again, what should be the case is that if you add a mid-measure clef as you did, it should display within the measure, no questions asked, and it should stay that way on reload.