Fingering is too small on small notes / chords
Reported version
3.5
Type
Functional
Frequency
Once
Severity
S5 - Suggestion
Reproducibility
Always
Status
closed
Regression
Yes
Workaround
No
Project
OS: Windows 10 (10.0), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 3.5.2.311459983, revision: 465e7b6
Open the attached score. You can immediately see that all fingering numbers/letters have been reduced in size on small notes/chords. The font-size should, of course, be as for normal size notes.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| fingering_small_notes.mscz | 5.86 KB |
Fix version
3.6.0
Comments
This is currently by design - most people have requested markings on small notes to be small. I could imagine why fingering might be considered an exception, though. So I encourage you to start a discussion on the forum to see if others agree.
(Edited) Articulations on small notes are reduced, as expected. But text objects attached to small notes are full size, also as expected. Likewise, fingering on small notes needs to be full-sized.
Staff text isn't attached to a "note" but to a "segment" - a position in time on a staff. It's been suggested that they should scale, and that's also a valid user request that is being considered for MuseScore 4. But the things actually attached to notes or chords - like accidentals, or articulations - do scale with the notes, as users expect. Fingering is the only text type attached to a note.
So again, I can potentially see arguments for why fingering should be treated as an exception, but also arguments for why it shouldn't be. It would be important to get a consensus among multiple users before making such a change.
So what happens to the fingering in a cadenza like the following?
![cadenza.png]( "cadenza.png")
The obvious solution is to make the scaling of fingering optional.
See also #312085: Grace notes: fingering is reduced in size (as of MS 3.5.1 or 3.5.2).
Yes, for the cadenza case, that could make sense, although by no means a given - the larger fingerings could make the overall effect too cluttered in some cases. For the cue note case, it's even less clear. This is why, again, I say it's important to get a broad range of opinions considering a variety of real world use cases.
"So again, I can potentially see arguments for why fingering should be treated as an exception, but also arguments for why it shouldn't be."
Since, both protocols are found in published scores, MuseScore should also support both. See https://musescore.org/en/node/312109#comment-1035826.
(Revised 19 Nov, 2020)
Related to #308589: Tuplet number: size should be reduced proportionately when tuplets are set to "small"?
Yes related to that and as far as I can on purpose.
FWIW, I'm fine with special casing fingering to exclude it from the resizing if someone wants to implement that.
Other non-tuplet text elements were excluded from resizing, but, for some reason, fingering was overlooked.
No, nothing else is specifically excluded, it's just that as mentioned originally, fingering and tuplet numbers are unique in not being attached to segments but to notes/chords/rests. Things like staff text are unaffected by changes to notes because they aren't attached to the notes in the first place.
https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/7195
Fixed in branch 3.x, commit 739921b1ec
_fix #312029: don't scale fingering with note size
Resolves: https://musescore.org/en/node/312029
A recent change to text layout for the sake of scale tuplet numbers
caused fingerings to start scaling with note size.
On one hand this might seem desirable, in practice it seems not.
After discussion on Telegram, it was decided to keep fingerings
full size when making notes small.
The original change - to have text layout respect
the text element's own "mag" setting - is good.
The fix here is to prevent changes to note sizes
from affecting the fingering "mag"._
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.