Time signatures appearing before repeat barlines instead of after.
When placing both repeat bars and time signatures together, it appears Musescore is automatically placing the TS in front of the barline rather than after. When dragging the TS, with Automatic placement on, the barline just moves further back, and with AP off, the score is muddled. See attached photo.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Time_Signature_Repeat_bar_bug.png | 43.05 KB |
Comments
This is correct. The time signature change happens only once; it doesn't repeat. So it would be logically and notationally incorrect to place it within the repeat. Only in the special case where there is another change within the repeated section is it considered appropriate to do this, and then you can use the workaround of dragging plus adding leading space as necessary using the Inspector. Someday it would be nice to have an option to do that special-case override without som much manual adjustment.
In reply to This is correct. The time… by Marc Sabatella
Interesting. I am a pianist, violinist and harpist, and have never seen this form of notation before in my life. I've attached what I am used to reading. Thank you for your response.
In reply to This is correct. The time… by Marc Sabatella
I must admit I don't know what is the standard way to notate that and I just hope MuseScore follows the correct standard.
![time.PNG]( "time.PNG")
But saying
' The time signature change happens only once; it doesn't repeat.'
is not correct in general, and still MuseScore puts the the time signature before the repeat bar.
See:
In reply to I must admit I don't know… by frfancha
As with many things in music, there is no one true absolute universal standard. MuseScore implements the one recommended and used by modern experts. But as I have acknowledged, indeed in the specific cases where the time signature does change again within the repeated section, it would be nice to have an explicit override.
In reply to As with many things in music… by Marc Sabatella
I hope the E. Gould style never becomes a standard in this case. That style not only defies rules of coherency (why would you put a time and key signature before a repeat barline but not before a single or double barline?), but also makes for huge empty spaces of “not music” that look like measures of “not music”:
The only elements that are put before a barline when they change mid-staff are clefs. Compare this alternative (my recommendation):
Other than recommending all musicians to adopt the second option, it would be nice that Musescore could allow the user to change the order with which elements appear in these situations, so that Gould’s followers can use Gould’s style and other users can rightly deviate from it.
In reply to I hope the E. Gould style… by m.r-botero
I strongly disagree - it’s extremely logical to put the signature on the “musically correct” side of a repeat. That could be before or after depending on the specific situation. Always placing it on the same side is guaranteed to tell a musical lie half the time.
Your example happens to be sufficiently contrived that there is no single best option. But the original case was much more straightforward, and logic is pretty clear.
So I personally will continue to favor the logical standard described by Gould, but I also completely support the option of a simple override. And if our engraving expert recommends a change of default, so be it, but I will continue to favor the more logical method in my own music.
In reply to I strongly disagree - it’s… by Marc Sabatella
I have to say I agree unequivocally with @m.r-botero. I find the first example clunky and the second much more straightforward and frankly correct to read. However I must agree with Marc's point, that Musescore should be a place which favours not any minority or majority of musicians and rather provides the most desirable options for all. A setting to choose the default format would be greatly appreciated from both parties.
In reply to I have to say I agree… by P.Nicolaou
I know this is old, but in MS 3 (and possibly older versions), you can highlight the time signature in Inspector, uncheck automatic placement, and then do the same for the time signature and manually move them using the x-offset. You may need to mess with stacking order/z-axis. This is a pain but it will produce the notation that literally everyone else uses.
I am a career musician and this E. Gould notation is plainly awful. Nobody uses this. Not one of my peers would look at that on a sheet of paper and not see an error. I digitize handwritten scores and would be embarrassed to hand such a thing in to a client.
It must be remembered that sheet music is a means to an end. Prescriptivism here is as laughable as it is in language. Whatever the majority of people use to clearly communicate their ideas becomes correct. When a bunch of users are asking for something, they do not want to hear "well technically it should be like this". I know this is freeware but I've seen your (@Marc Sabatella) answers elsewhere and they are extremely irritating.
I know this is old, but in MS 3 (and possibly older versions), you can highlight the time signature in Inspector, uncheck automatic placement, and then do the same for the time signature and manually move them using the x-offset. You may need to mess with stacking order/z-axis. This is a pain but it will produce the notation that literally everyone else uses.
I am a career musician and this E. Gould notation is plainly awful. Nobody uses this. Not one of my peers would look at that on a sheet of paper and not see an error. I digitize handwritten scores and would be embarrassed to hand such a thing in to a client.
It must be remembered that sheet music is a means to an end. Prescriptivism here is as laughable as it is in language. Whatever the majority of people use to clearly communicate their ideas becomes correct. When a bunch of users are asking for something, they do not want to hear "well technically it should be like this". I know this is freeware but I've seen your (@Marc Sabatella) answers elsewhere and they are extremely irritating.
In reply to I know this is old, but in… by jamescook_
Amen!
I'd like to add my voice to those arguing that the time signature after repeat sign. I don't believe I've seen E. Gould in the wild and would love to be able to do m.r-botero's alternative