Drawing a rectangle

• Jan 27, 2021 - 16:57

I've asked this before but somehow the old solution doesn't seem to be working in MS 3.

I want to create a rectangle that looks like this (this is from MS 2):


I've tried both staff text and a rehearsal mark. In the attached score, I've added a rectangle around the text. But I can't seem to change the inside margin between the text and the border to make it a tall skinny rectangle. Changing the text margin doesn't help. How the heck do you do that?

Attachment Size
MS Rectangle Question.mscz 5.71 KB


In reply to by darkstream

??? I can't think of any special feature MuseScore 2 has that would make this possible in ways in isn't with MsueScore 3, quite the contrary - the workarounds I can think of would be much more convoluted. How are you faking this in MuseScore 2? With a a big empty piece of framed text that you are sort of just hoping will turn out the right size by adding the right number of spaces and newlines and hoping nothing changes in the layout to mess it up? That sounds at least as awkward as anything else. A simple graphics would be far simpler.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

In older versions of museScore you could just put in an empty Mark (or space of text with a which had a frame property) to get an empty frame and then enter newlines to increase the height of the frame and spaces to increase the width (or margins) and if necessary change fontsize to proportion the the frame. I never needed this but it worked fine.

In 3.6 if you try to increase the width and height of a Mark it links to a beginning and end measure and the width becomes wide when entering newlines. Changing the font size doesn't help.

Attachment Size
Vetrical Box.pdf 34.8 KB
Vetrical Box.mscz 3.15 KB

In reply to by avronp

OK, understood, the way these text frames are drawn has indeed changed, and if you were relying on the old way, it can be problematic. Still, this does not seem like a good method to me for creating boxes if one cares about reliability or maintainability or ease of use. Even in MuseScore 2 I would not have recommended doing it that way. And needing to revert all the way back to MuseScore 2 and give up the thousands of other improvements in reliability, maintainability, and ease of use just to make one awkward workaround for creates boxes seems like a enormous step backwards that backfires in virtually every conceivable way.

Meanwhile, though, I recommend filing an issue on the behavior of multi-line text frames. Probably there should be more control provided.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

In reply to the request by the user above and your response, I wasn't suggesting that it was necessary to revert to previous versions of museScore but rather, that software updates should be backward compatible. Surely one of the points of bug reporting is abiding by one of the essential principles of Quality Control: that the same action gives the same consistent results across updates. If between versions this is not consistent then this causes disruption for users.

MuseScore is an unbelievably good piece of software and glitches reported by users are the feedback for which large companies employ large departments to check their software in order to check and improve their software. Sometimes with updates features are made obsolete and the graphic feature required by the user here (which I personally would have no need for) may be one such feature that might just be made obsolete because of its rarity. However, seeing this report in a general light it might be interesting to add a graphic layer to scores for various uses including the one required by the above user. I personally would like to have a graphic layer for signed watermarks which could protect my scores from infringement. Transparent images that I superimpose can only be in front and not behind a score. I have never thought to suggest it because I wonder if only a few would need it.

In reply to by avronp

In general, we do strive to provide backwards compatibility. But we also strive to create improvements, and sometimes, it's just not practical to achieve both goals at once. There are lots of actions that produced a quirky/bad result in one version that users complain about, and we strive to fix those. But it does indeed occasionally happen that a change that's an improvement for most people turns out to be a regression for others.

In the case of framed text, it was never really designed for this purpose, but for ordinary rehearsal marks etc. So the algorithm s are optimized more for that case, the shape of the frame is an improvement in many cases.

That said, I don't claim to understand the exact point of this particular change. I just remember a bunch of user requests for better optimization of the shape of these frames for ordinary rehearsal marks, and these were implemented while realizing they might not be ideal for certain unusual corner cases.

Like I said, in the future, perhaps multip,e options could be provided. But better, I think, to figure out a way of adding customizable shapes directly so people don't keep relying on the specifics of how frames text works for purposes that actually are unrelated.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

In my many years (50) as a software developer I have never ceased to be surprised by the unusual and novel usage made of my software. In a GIS application made for a very large municipality with the intended USER AUDIENCE being professional users (town planners, architects, map makers, cadasterers, utilities, property developers, lawyers, etc.) We were surprised to find that our most frequent users were CHILDREN who were using our graphic layer for creating layers for their own purposes: bicycle paths, traffic free paths without crossing a road, environmental protection, city squares, city walks, backgrounds for games, etc. Our main user became schools, who adopted it as a teaching tool for school projects, more than the professional users we originally intended.

MuseScore has a lot of uses and I assume many were unanticipated by the software engineers. The current version seems very attuned to a user audience requiring excellent gravure and printing needs and these are outstanding. However I assume most users are musicians and not printers and their printing needs are more modest and are aimed at home printing or small scale digital printing. The introduction of the inspector a la photoshop is impressive, but unwieldy, making things that were previously simple more complex. Menus, shortcuts and rightclicks accomplished many of the standard choices in a simple fashion, without trying to understand the myriad of unparsimonious options in the inspector. From the current thread I have only now learned that an image can be sent to the back to be used as a watermark by changing the stacking order property. A right click on an image with a "bring to the front/send to the back" toggle would make that action so much simpler.

In reply to by avronp

I'm not sure what you find easy about needing to right click, choose something from a menu, wait for the dialog to open, change the setting, be locked out of editing your score while making the change but also be unable to see the effect of the change, then hit OK to see the result, then repeat the whole process if the result isn't to your liking. Not compared to simply making the change directly in the Isnpector and seeing the result in real time- far easier, far faster.

But, certainly, it can be agreed the current Inspector interface can be a bit overwhelming in some cases by showing more options than you might want at any given moment. So you'll be happy to know this is being streamlined greatly in MuseScore 4. Still will have the same ease of use and direct feedback, but you won't see all settings at once by default.

In reply to by avronp

For images though, you can add them to a frame and change their stacking order to be below the score (for example to 10). So you basically have an "image layer" available if you add a vertical frame to a page (make it's height 0 afterwards to not affect score layout.
If you choose a basic SVG image, you can even scale it to full page without loss of quality.

See also https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/images

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