Schoenberg's Theory

• Oct 4, 2014 - 20:41

I am reading this book that includes about 350 musical examples. I thought it would be a good idea to transcribe all of the examples and put them into one package, so that people who have the book in PDF or hard copy can listen to the examples as they read. Would anyone here be interested in working on this? I suppose I could cover the first 100 examples.


Comments

I'm fairly certain that Schoenberg's Theory is not public domain and if you do that, you will be in breach of copyright. If you want to pursue this, make sure you are copyright compliant.
Regards,

In reply to by xavierjazz

Actually, while I don't know the full story, Wikipedia says it was written in 1910, which makes it public domain in the US and probably most other countries. Any given modern edition might still be copyright protected, so photocopying and distributing the examples from a printed copy of a more recent printing would still be illegal, but re-entering the musical examples yourself should be OK. Not that I'd recommend taking my word as definitive, but I do think it could still be worth pursuing.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Schoenberg died in 1951 so his work is still copyright in the UK until the end of 2021. But it is now public domain in Canada.

I was under the impression that the US also operated a 70 years after death rule, but I'm no expert so Marc may be correct.

It is also quite possible that transcription of musical examples may be construed as fair use.

The problem will be with any recently published edition.

To be sure, though, it would be advisable to contact Schoenberg's Estate managers. They will know exactly what the copyright situation is, and may grant you permission to release the excerpts, provided they hold the copyright.

In reply to by ChurchOrganist

The US *now* has a 70-years-after-death rule, but it only went into effect in 1978 and was not applied retroactively. Before that there were a series of different laws in effect, but the bottom line is, anything published before 1923 is public domain in the US. I guess in the UK, a similar law change went into effect a few decades ago but *was* applied retroactively.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I don't really care about copyright because I am not going to mass distribute this. It will be for my own personal use and anyone who wants to work on it with me can have a copy. I doubt that it should raise eyebrows anywhere.

In reply to by ChurchOrganist

Do you mean the book? Or the scored examples? I am going to go ahead and do this for my own personal use. I think that is fair use of the material. many of the examples are taken from the masters and Schoenberg lifted them from other books. It is not like I am reproducing the book for mass distribution. Anyway, copyright does not matter until if no one is interested. So, my first question is if anyone wants to work on this using another forum or email?

In reply to by Joe H

I'd love to have a look at this theory...I've heard that his methods of stacking and inverting chords are extremely useful. I'd use it as well for informational and educational purposes...qualifying it as "fair use" and not subject to copyright if I do not distribute original copies of the text or profit from it any way. That would be IF it were subject to copyright - it is public domain in North America. I'm also of the opinion that information should always be free and widely distributed. Note ALSO that 99% of the awful arrangements on here are cheesy - unoriginal rip-offs of ACTUAL copyright and no one really cares that I see.

I'd work the information into original arrangements using Schoenberg's technique's here on the site and be happy to help out with this if you can shoot me a pdf - chris@tapper7.com

thx.

I said it already, but I will say it another time here. I find it *very* disturbing that any time someone wants to do a transcription job and ask for help, the copyright question comes on the table as the first answer.
It just like if I would say I will drive from my place to another place and ask if someone wants to join and the first thing people would say is "Don't drive over the speed limit", sometimes not even knowing if a speed limit exists in my country!
Schoenberg is PD in China, Japan, Canada, Corea, even maybe the US for this work, Joe could live in one of these countries.

In a way, it doesn't help MuseScore or this forum, both are about openness, helping each other and freedom. So I hope that will not happen again.

@JoeH: I hope you will find some people to help you with your project. I prefer to spend my time on fixing bugs in MuseScore but I love your idea.

In reply to by Joe H

I am in, if you are still on.

Some time ago I started on Reger’s Supplement to the Theory of Modulation (1904; 100 examples), but efforts to also integrate its text has dragged away with proof-reading. (The book is public domain and available @ Archive.org and from Open Library.) This, plus the usual difficulties with trying to keep “formatting level” low for text-based harmonic notation, plus MuseScore going 2.0 just when I had got 1.3 saddled, plus my having not much spare time makes it slow work.

There seems to be some confusion here, about Schönberg’s title/s. Theory of Harmony (Harmonielehre, 1911; 346 examples) has mostly schematic chord progressions, while authentic quotes (by piano reduction) abound in Structural Functions of Harmony (1954; 172 examples). However both are of equal interest & importance, so the question is really where to start or how to split the meet.

Assuming you have started, I can therefore cover Theory … chapter VIII–XIV (examples #100–205) or Structural … chapter X–XI (#86–172; or an equal amount spread out, since most authentic quotes, as notationally heavy as musically rewarding contra dry chord progressions, are kept to the latter half of the book).

We should at least start here out in the open, for others to take/give notice.

In reply to by Joe H

Great, I will then start at #100.

Reger’s Supplement … was not meant to be thrown onto you. I will have its examples done in a few days, and my attempt at the text is mostly to learn whether/how such things can be done with MuseScore. Attached you find #1–35 “raw”. Reger’s examples are much easier than Schönberg’s, since they are all 4-part great stave throughout.

We should set some guidelines to keep files & examples uniform. We, and any other participants, will have at least 1 file each during transcription, but how do we take on Schönberg’s varying number of staves? (Theory … has 1 example (#234) of 4 staves, plus 1 other that should be notated in 4 (last one in Appendix). Structural … is predominantly 2-stave, but #144 must be decided on firstly (and better to just manually align measures there, rather than having a single example force the whole file into 4 × 2 stave format).) It seems to me the most practical to aim finally at 1 single file containing all examples; with 2 × great (piano) stave, ‘Hide empty staves’ enabled, bar numbers invisible, no brackets but 2 braces/accolades, no courtesy key signatures, and examples separated by break and numbered by Rehearsal Mark, as in my Reger example. To ensure an easy merge, please post here or send to me a snippet file of yours, for me to work from.

Attachment Size
Reger Supplement #1-35.mscz 7.51 KB

In reply to by HenJor

I will do Chapters I - VII up to Ex. 99. But we have our first problem already. I am running MS1.1 and cannot open your file. First question is: will you be able to open my file? I don't know if and how and when I will be able to update my version. I am new to MS and any other kind of music writing software. I tried installing the update a couple of months ago when I started with this, but I am running Linux and cannot install anything complicated. I can extract the files for the newer version, but don't know how to put them together. I may find a solution to this. I have a partition with Windows that I can run.

It does not make any sense to continue working with MS until I have the newer version if the older files are inaccessible with the newer. I have a lot of work already done in the older version and hate to lose all of it.

Attachment Size
Theory Schoenberg.mscz 2.39 KB

In reply to by Joe H

I'm not sure how you intend to use these samples but it would probably make a lot more sense to use a single mscz file per sample. Maybe even decide on a (small) page format you want to use. By doing so, the mscz files could be used to be integrated in a pdf document together with the text of the book. Even an epub3 with interactive playback could be created!

In reply to by Joe H

Oh. I cannot help with Linux, but in the meantime you should go for 2.0 beta (or try the latest Nightly version – it is portable) on Windows. MuseScore is backward compatible (I can open your file in 2.0 beta), so you will lose nothing from updating the program.

I attach here the Reger file again, now in PDF.

We should do this in 2.0 , really, much because of that version’s feature ‘Hide Stave’. I did #1–4 in 1.3 which you should be able to open in 1.1 . (The makeshift left parenthesis of #4 does not seem to stick through save, but the file will do for a start.) Do so, and when you get 2.0 beta to work, open the file in that version and save it there. I will use the same snippet for chapters VIII–XIV (#100–205) and we will try/prepare merging from time to time.

Well met!

Attachment Size
Reger Supplement #1-35.pdf 80.94 KB
Schön ToH Snippet 1.3.mscz 5.48 KB

In reply to by HenJor

Your work looks much better than mine. I numbered the four examples in my file, but the numbers are so small. Yours is much easier to read. I may lag behind on this for a bit. When I get situated, I'll get caught up with you. How do you play back a PDF?

Can I just work directly on the 1.3 snippet file you sent me? I see you revised my work and put it on a great staff. If I can edit that file, I can just dig in and get the leg work done. Rather than monkey around with upgrading the MS version. I'm really very new to this.

In reply to by Joe H

I numbered the examples by rehearsal marks (Ctrl+M), thinking it should be easier that way to jump to a specific example. (If yet there is no command “Goto next/specified rehearsal mark”, there will be soon, and the file already pre-functioned.) The double great stave was chosen because of the 2.0 feature ‘Hide empty staves’. It will carry a lot of empty space in 1.3 obviously, but I see no smart way to do it otherwise (except for separate files, see below), as 2.0 should be given priority.

The PDF snippet cannot be used for audio playback. I do not know how to integrate music examples, formatted text, hyperlinks and layout for that feature, and am not eager to monkey around that bit, either. I guess it can be done if someone were to help, and agree that in that case a lasconic separate file-per-example would be the better solution; but until then we should aim at a single file for the whole collection – which could always be split up for a Helper’s convenience.

If you can open and edit the 1.3 file, by all means do. There is great difference between 1.3 and 2.0 beta, and one should not downgrade. You have 1.1 installed, so should not have any trouble upgrading to 1.3 (which is the latest stable version), so please try that. I will do my part in 1.3 , and when completion is due, we can join files in 1.3 , then saving it to 2.0 (which by then may be stable).

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I do not get what you mean here. The object is not really to have a great stave (or 2), but rather a system of 4 staves with alternating bass & treble clefs (which just happens to correspond to a 2 piano setup, with that instrument having influence by tradition & idiom) – that is, 1 setup to handle each & all of the examples – that is doable in 1.x and will carry over to 2.0 without any need for adjustment. 1.3 has Style/Edit General Style/Score/Hide empty staves, so no need for fakery, but the results seems to me better in 2.0 .

In reply to by HenJor

in 1.x 'hide empty staves' is more like 'hide unused instruments', i.e. it hides a grand staff only if neither staff contains a note.
So if you want 'hide empty staves' to hide e.g. the bass of a grand staff in 1.x, that trick needs to get used, in 2.0 this is not needed any longer, but doesn't harm either.
Except if you're using cross-staff notation...

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I simply forgot to lengthen barlines. Theory … has only 2 examples of >2 staves (#194, 234; the thing in Appendix should be aligned but separated) which can be fixed in final tweaking, avoiding cluttered pages and sore eyes on our way there.

I think we are ready–set with your snippet. –Go?

So which format are we using? I was going alright with the old format. Can I just use my old version and you people can do the formatting? I just want to get the notes in their places. Whatever places those are.

In reply to by Joe H

I have begun my part from the last file, posted by Jojo-Schmitz just above, and urge you to to the same. It is, again, imperative we start from an identical file, since parts are to be joined later, and what work you have already done should copy/paste OK.

Some formatting should be standardized:
Example number: Rehearsal Mark [Ctrl + M]
Example subdivision (‘a), b), c), …’): Staff Text [Ctrl + T]

Everything else may be considered cosmetical, thus left at respective discretion. For instance, on the one hand, I have kept the 1- to 4-voice progressions to discrete voices, on the other I have done the Roman numeral notation only for a couple examples where they can be done entirely as lyrics [Ctrl + L]. (I think there is a better way using figured bass, but will not dig deeper for now.)

OK - I have been having trouble with the Internet connection. I'll start with the "snippet" file. I spose my old examples will just copy to that? I estimate about one month to do my part, maybe better, if I get on a roll.

I notice that you corrected those parts where I could not get parentheses! I'm still using the old MS version and these things may have to be spruced up by someone else with the newer version. You can only count on me getting the notes and rests into place, which is about 90% of the work. Can I leave some of those details to you guys who have the newer version? :)

I'll do a few more this weekend and post it, so you can see if it meets standards.

In reply to by Joe H

I'm lost now. I began with a simple piano stave and you changed it to a grand stave. Is there some reason why I cannot just continue using the file I started with for the first 99 examples? That way I can finish what I started. My files does not copy and paste properly to your new file. Much of the formatting is lost or altered.

I like the snippet 1.3 file. Can I just continue with that? the file you recommend is not working. Have you tried to copy and paste the first 4 examples into it? See the attachment.

Attachment Size
Schön ToH Snippet 1 copy .mscz 2.56 KB

In reply to by Joe H

“Is there some reason why I cannot just continue using the file I started with for the first 99 examples?”
Yes. Please read this thread.

Copy/paste should work just fine between 1.1 and 1.3, if done in streaks (as “non-composite” as necessary) – but not copying a complete example, time signature changes and all, from an authentic piano stave or more and trying to map it onto [what MuseScore thinks of as] separate instruments “dressed up” as piano, in straight 4/4. In fact, with enough manual attention to detail, copy/paste should work just fine between any program/score versions; but afterwards tweaking soon blurrs out into marches the swamps of which are often more irksomely traversed than the nearby solid ground of just and brute re-notation.

Joining files afterwards is not a must, but if we want to do that, the files must conform to each other in a number of ways not necessarilly apparent to a user inexperienced with music/notation/software. I say this not to “write on your nose”, but to make things clear: If we want to join files, and I think that would be neat (and practical for reasons stated earlier), we need to agree to a degree where copy/paste is preferable to re-notation.

The problem I have dribbled with for a couple of days’ spare time is:

1. Assortment of up to 346 separate files is a mess; therefore ‘Hide empty staves’
2. 2.0 is not an option for both, therefore 1.1/3 version; and therefore faked piano staves
3. Keeping Schönberg’s essentially 4-part voice-leading by MuseScore’s Voices is neat, but Example voices jump between staves (See #5); which cannot be notated without faking, if staves are from different instruments (Goto 2.)

*but*

I think we have a compromise here, and a neat one: You “like the snippet 1.3 file” which should be the “Schön ToH Snippet 1.3.mscz” “Posted by Henjor on October 24, 2014 - 10:57pm”. We should prepare “Hide empty staves”; you have not complained about being cluttered up with empty staves (and can insert Page break for a makeshift 2.0 Continuous view, thus ignoring if not hiding them), and I can cope because it will after all be updated to 2.0 where ‘Hide empty staves’ works even on authentic piano. Therefore we go for MuseScore 1.3 and file “Schön ToH Snippet 1.3.mscz” which has authentic 2 piano great staves (discarding the fake ones posted later by lasconic & me), cut the 2nd piano from it (since it is not needed until #194) and making necessary cosmetical corrections. Result file to start from is “Schön ToH Snippet 1.3 Pf.mscz” attached.

For ease of coordination, we also go by the only 2 items of formatting set earlier:
Example number: Rehearsal Mark [Ctrl + M]
Example subdivision (‘a), b), c), …’): Staff Text [Ctrl + T]
Everything else is considered cosmetical […].

I will do my part in separate voices, and of course you do as you will. As for formatting, we do the necessary stuff first: notes & numbering.

(My examples file to Reger’s Supplement … would have been done today, were it not for his contextually untransposable detour into Db minor meeting with #29931: Custom key signatures do not show.)

Attachment Size
Schön ToH Snippet 1.3 Pf.mscz 4.6 KB

In reply to by HenJor

I am going to need time to get up to the level of proficiency that others have here. I initially wanted everything in one file because it could be split up into single numbered files or chapter packages or packs of tens. Then you brought up this formatting issue, which seems justified on the surface. But how many of the 346 examples are in four part voicing? Of the first 99 examples, every one of them is scored on a single piano stave. So I will make a package of the first 99 on one piano stave.

I think the idea of having one format is OK. But consider that we could also make the project to appear exactly as it appears in the textbook. A four stave format for the two stave scores is superfluous. Also, this will allow me to just go on and complete my part, with my version of MS and my level of proficiency.

In reply to by Joe H

Yes, that is already said, so please answer this time: Do we start from the latest file posted, “Schön ToH Snippet 1.3 Pf.mscz”? It is the same file you liked, only reduced to 1 piano to simplify the furthest.

I do not think even the nightliest MuseScore can do functional analysis as in the text; see for instance How to write a symbol for diminished chord?. This calls for multi-layered text in 4 upper/lower cases, sort of, or pictured text, but then horizontally aligned. I will gladly help with whatever I can to realize such a feature for the program, but a workaround: No. As said, maybe I will mark those examples already doable in extenso as Lyrics [Ctrl + L], so as not to create more future problems. (It is important to keep different things notated through different means: Example numbering = Rehearsal Mark, Example subdivision = Staff Text.)

Discrete voicing is essential but dispensable, not formatting, and no problem if we do as proposed now. (Instead of making, say, a voice 3 jump at middle-bar to the upper stave (in “fake piano mode” = between different instruments), you could fake also the jump by starting another voice 3 native to the upper stave and be cluttered by rests in both staves. Cosmetical indeed, also disrupting coherence of the subject at stake; and luckily no problem to render correctly in 2.0 .)

In reply to by HenJor

Yes, the “Schön ToH Snippet 1.3 Pf.mscz” file looks good and I can just pick up and continue with example 5, continuing with the style you have used, to the best of my ability. I'll have to reread this thread to get caught up with a few of your suggestions on how to number the examples and how to get parentheses. This file should do until you need to introduce four staves. Then we can change to the other file for those examples.

In reply to by Joe H

Great, then we are on our way. For those parentheses (there are different kinds, behaving differently), you hit [Z] and drag left & right halves from the palette; to adjust them, either zoom [Ctrl + scroll] and drag, or double-click and use arrows with/without [Ctrl]. That should work for you. I will probably redo my bit again, quicker than fnuling it through another file setup. Good luck & patience!

I did a couple more but had to stop at #7 because it has a figured bass. How do I get those numbers?

I don't like all of the odd time signatures I have to create. If we can have a blank key signature, I don't see why we cannot have a blank time signature on the palette. I know that music software builds upon a fundamental of time but most theory texts have exercises that use no time signature and I think we could have that option by designing a measure break to be used with a blank time signature. A measure break would work like a line or page break. When using a blank time signature, the measure ends only after you have put into anything you want. It does not depend upon time values. If I want to put 25 half notes in the measure, I can. And then I just end the measure with the measure break. I might not be able to play it back though.

Attachment Size
Ex.1-6.mscz 4.1 KB

In reply to by Joe H

Figured bass is created using Ctrl+G in 2.0 Beta/Nightly. You'd have to fake it using ordinary text in 1.3. I wouldn't recommend wasting time on that. FWIW, not sure it's been totally decided yet, but I wouldn't advise using 1.3 for this project. 2.0 is the way of the future; if you're creating something for posterity, better to use the newer format, even if that means you have to wait a little while before completing the project.

As for time signatures - not sure what you mean exactly, but if it's just a matter of wanting to put some random number of beats in a measure, you don't need time signatures for that. Right click a measure, Measure Properties, change the Actual Duration. Set it to 50/4 and you can have 25 half notes. Here also, 2.0 will provide easier ways of doing this so you don't have to count the beats first - just enter as separate measures, then select the range and do "Join Measures". But the underlying mechanism is actually the same either way.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Time signatures are usually not used for beginning examples in theory books. If they want 12 whole notes in a measure, they do so and do not use a time signature. See my last attachment to view how I handled that with a bunch of oddball time signatures. None of these first examples require a time signature in the textbook. I conclude that something is counterintuitive in the basic fundamentals of this software. It should be designed to use as a musician would actually want to use it.

When I notate by hand, I often to not use time signatures. And when I do not notate a time signature, no default signature is implied. I can see how difficult a problem this is for a software designer because they may be thinking of time in absolute increments, yet musicians seldom think of time in that manner. Time is relative. If I have 24 whole notes in a measure without a time signature, no time is designated or implied, other than natural time. 24 whole notes in a measure means that you play each note letting it decay and finish in it's own natural time. That is what Schoenberg is trying to communicate in these early examples, and my being bound to use a time signature distorts the meaning of the scored examples.

Since this style of notation is quite typical for any theory book, I am led to think that the fundamentals of music notation software are counterintuitive. They do not begin as a musician would begin. A musician begins thinking about music in natural time. I was forced to notate these examples in a manner that is confusing and misleading.

I cannot update MS now. I am using Linux and the package that came with Linux. But I am having computer and Internet problems and can't update. I have the later versions downloaded but cannot install them because the package contains components and must be assembled. I don't know how to assemble it. If you have a one click download and installation, I could use that. But that is not what I have downloaded from your site.

I'll continue to edit any files you want to post, as much as I can edit with this early MS version. If there are details that only the latest version can add, then those with the later versions might try to edit what I have done. I'm OK with notes and rests. I can transcribe those and that is the bulk of the work.

In reply to by Joe H

It is perfectly possible to not have a time signature displayed at all - simply select the initial time signature and delete it in 2.0. In 1.3, there are other methdos to suppress it, such as marking it invisible. But they are not as elegant as simply deleting it, which is another reason why I think 2.0 is better suited for a project like this.

Anyhow, there is no fundamental problem here. *Most* music played *does* have a time sugnature, so it makes sense it be displayed by default. It is only unusual cases like textbok preparation in which *'sometimes* you don't want a time signature, so it makes perfect sense that it take an extra step to remove it. Then, if you wish to create a lot of scores with that same change, simply save as a tempalte so you can re-use it as much as you want.

On Linux, the best way to get 2.0 running is to compile it yourself - see the Development link in menu at right for full instructions. But if you've never compiled software before, it might be too complex. In which case, I'd suggest waiting for the official release of 2.0.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Well, let's just keep plugging along here and see what develops.If someone can suppress those time signatures, that will be great. I suppose it will all work out. Yes, this is a minor thing when you consider that most music is notated with time signatures and only without in rare instances.

How are we doing? I am up to #10. I can tie two notes together that are on the same pitch, but here in ex. 10 it is required to tie together notes on different pitches with a beam and not a curved tie. How do I get that?

Henjor - I am getting a slow start, but once I get into a roll, I'll finish this portion at a faster pace. How are you doing with your portion?

Attachment Size
Schön ToH Snippet 1.3 Pf.mscz 5.18 KB

In reply to by Joe H

If they are not the same pitch, then by definition it's not a tie. In regular music (not a textbook) I'd say it's probably a slur. Here it is more likely just a generic line used to indicate some sort of relationship between the notes that is explained in the text. But a slur (from the Lines) palette is still the best way to enter that, assuming you so want it curved.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

It is a straight line that shows the relationship of two different pitches. When the pitches are the same, it appears as a tie. I can't get this straight line from the lines on the palette. I can place a straight line but it fixes parallel to the staff lines. This is incorrect. The line should cross from one note to the other note on a slant. The line should be straight, yet it connects two notes on different pitches and therefore should be slanted.

In reply to by Joe H

The in the palette is not constrained to be horizontal only, not in either 1.3 or 2.0. After placing it, just double click and then drag either of the endpoints.

Actually, though, since you want it attached to the notes, there is a more direct way. Simply use the "gliss" line from the Apreggios & Glissandi palette, and after placing it, right click and use the menu/dialog to remove the text.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

[Back again from other work. #100 through 135 redone done, no makeup.]

Better not to use Stave Text, already assigned to example subdivision, now also for analytic notation, that way hampering easy [singling out each and every element of its kind in] afterwards tweaking. Better keep things that cannot be transcibed in full and discretely to a minimum of element number & type, since it may have to be deleted for a proper remake. Mind Posterity.

I am going slower than you. I think my estimate of one month was not correct. Could be two. I was not aware of how much I didn't know about this program. How can I get unisons to appear as two notes side by side?

I'm thinking that I should just plow through this and notate what I can notate. Everything I don't know, I can do at the end using the tutorials or going through it with another experienced user guiding me.

In reply to by Joe H

You can also manually shift things sideways. In 1.3 Win, you must double-click the element to move, and click elsewhere to release before double-clicking next element. Selecting a note other than the one on top is easier when zooming [Ctrl + ↑/↓], using-choosing voice layer, or playing with wrong pitch.

Sideways big step: [←/→] or [Shift + ←/→]
Sideways small step: [Ctrl + ←/→]

Schönberg differs from recent notational standard in placement of accidentals and cluster notes. With a risk of being mossy, I think it best to quote his original layout (for notes, not accidentals) for better visual accord; especially since stuff like chord analysis may not (initially, at least) be fully covered by us, and it will be possible with a mere few keystrokes to revert to today’s practice.

Just plow through it, yes, the way to go. Notes and numbering are essential, as said before; chord/functional analysis cannot be transcribed in full, should therefore be [considered cosmetical =] left for later, be it ever so big a part to exclude. When one comes upon a new bird, check the corpus for whether it can be transcribed in full without disturbing what has already been set:

#130a: big “parenthesis” whose left part is missing for me, probably still there but gone fishy outside of working area. Maybe jumped at save because it was linked to the same note as the right parenthesis half, or because I twisted it to get it vertical; it is actually 1 of 2 slurs from the lines palette. (The smaller parenthesis framing the top natural in the same bar is of another type, one of >1 actual parantheses, behaves differently and is not affected.) Better to delete the “parenthesis” and keep record of this and similar specimen to be fixed later.

#131c: “×”. Can be done with ‘cross head’ from [Z] Symbols palette, but is not a head (and slightly smaller); therefore I did it in Lyric as an ASCII multiplication sign (pedant-approved size).

#102 bar 9: “!!” done in Lyric as 2 exclamation marks because of “×” above. (There is a Unicode ‘Double exclamation mark’ but one might as well have double-flat “bb” for precedence.)

# 140b: Not there yet.

Also, Schönberg at times discards example subdivision or gives Key headers “instead”. (See #134; discarding for no apparent reason, as he has both subdivision and key header in examples both preceding and following close; I am also unsure about his use of Double Bar (and 1.3 difference between dragging and double-clicking it).) He also detours into complex numbering as in #136, prompting numbering format exceptions. Such strains are enough for 1 item (Stave Text) without also venturing it onto functional &/or chord notation the standards of which we know beforehand it cannot but approximate. One could in plain “flat” text notate a 6/4 chord discernable from a 6—4 progression, but in this case should not.

No need to rush things, I am slow too. There are as always other things less important but more urgent, so my part will come along in fairly random bursts.

On New Years Eve I decided to bump this up to high priority and finished #1-99. See the attachment. The only things I missed were a few odd symbols and couldn't figure out roman numerals beneath the bass clef. Note that there is a three stave section at #18 that I couldn't do.

I will go on and begin with #200 and up. :)

Attachment Size
Schön ToH Snippet 1.3 Pf (copy).mscz 32.73 KB

1 Created a new score (I already have a vocal/piano template which did just fine)
2 Spaced it so that there were 6 measures per system
3 Added barlines and deleted redundant measures (the template had 100 and we only need 12 here), unchecked "Bar Numbers"
4 Enterd the minims on the top stave of the first system
5 Selected all those minims and pressed [Shift]8 to add the octaves below each
6 Entered the minims on the top stave of the second system
7 Selected all those new minims and pressed [Shift]5 to add the appropriate intervals
8 Added in the text (Stave Text for a and b; Rehersal Mark - without frame - for the number 18)
9 Entered the Voice 1 minims for the treble (2nd) stave
10 Entered the other notes for this stave in the 2nd Voice
11 Top notes for bottom stave
12 2nd Voice notes for bottom stave

Now we need some lines. I decided to use glissandos as they look OK andmove with the notes on reformatting the page.
13 Select the first note and then double-click glissando (the onewith the straight line) in the palette
14 Right-click on the line and uncheck the "Show Text" box in Gliassando Properties
15 Copy and paste the nice, naked glissando to the next note that needs it...and the next... and the next

To incorporate this three-stave piece into your magnum opus you will need to set the whole thing up to have three staves to begin with. Then you choose to Hide Empty Staves to get rid of the third stave from the rest of the work. In 1.3 this causes problems since the Rehearsal marks and other texts are anchored to the first stave and disappear with it so to complete your work you can either anchor the text to the second stave (using purely Staff Text) or you can use version 2.0 beta or a Nightly as they don't have this problem.

Attachment Size
Schoenberg_reply.mscz 2.67 KB

In reply to by underquark

underquark - Thanks for doing those staves. It will take me a while to read over what you have written.

Henjor - #200 and up is advanced and I would like to back up and help you complete the intermediate examples before going on. Where are you and how can we divide that section?

In reply to by Joe H

Hi there. I am sorry for not checking in earlier. Have been heaped in work, sick several days, then Charlie Hebdo (I am OK, others not), then away. Now back on a stop-by home for couple of days before leaving again. Have time for this post only, will be back in a week and then have my part done in a couple of days. Then onto merging files (which may be problematic).

I am almost done and have been for quite a while, but keeping lots of trouble with just a few examples (#136-8, 141/a), now mostly solved. Others can be run through in just hours, but these few are, in voice leading, either unclear by editor/Schönberg (un-/intentional alike) or graphical resolution – needing more info (mostly solved); or 5-part and thereby impossible to notate correctly in MuseScore’s 4 voices – needing OK compromise (done easily).

Do have a look for instance at #137:
> The 1984 scan is terrible, but so is the print. I went to the National Library of Music and got both the 1984 print (i.e. source for our scan) and the 1948 one (music notation better printed in some regards, text abridged) to get a better picture, and some things could not be discerned even with 1984 in hand, but readily with 1948.
> “?” at A.a) measure 6 clearly ‘comments’ on the VII chord formation, but at A.f) measure 1 seems to deal not with the III chord alone but the progression of which it is part; and at B.a) measure 4 subtitutes for a chord (like at C.c) measure 2 but with all notes ‘taken out’)?
> A.f) measure 1 has a question mark, but what is that vertical thing in the following measures? (Those are exclamation marks, but how can one release a print like that?!)
> It would be quite a coincidence for the public domain scan we are using to have been made from the actual specimen i have before me, so judging by the corrupt VI chord at A.a) the print plate itself really is bad. For comparison, you find #137 scanned at 1200 dpi grayscale from both 1948 and -84 editions here:
http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/0Q6hqzpS/file.html

Graphical accord is important, more so because we cannot represent everything. Therefore we should choose to notate only those groups of objects easily defined by a reader, which can be notated correctly in full. You have it all set in voice 1, which is fine and according to original black/white reader point of view (but that doubled C in #98 e) should be horizontally adjusted); I have, save a couple of exceptions (#141/a) everything set in voices 1 through 4, thereby accenting writer notion of voice leading – and catching every problem arising from this ‘channel’. But voice leading being fundamental to understanding 4-part harmony, I want to have a try also where Schönberg jokers away with black/white print. (Now have a look at #137 D–E, and complete/identify SATB for chords of less than 4 notes.)

I had finished up to #183, excepting the cumbersome few mentioned, but noticed some on the strech #139-174 had been corrupted somehow. Rather than correcting these (which only seemed to further the problem), I am redoing them all. It is easy and will be done in some hours (now at 157) after I am back, a week from now.

What do you mean by “#200 and up is advanced”? Melodic/musical as opposed to prior schematic? Please leave #100 through 206 to me, and have yourself anything thereabove. I will catch up quickly, so we can split that last section.

henjor - Thanks for notifying me. I was wondering what had happened to you. Part of the problem with initiating projects online with new people who have not worked together is the getting in sync with different posting paces. Take all the time you need. It's only natural that some interruption will occur.

I'm a pretty good workhorse, but inconsistent. I'll drag my feet trying to get into a project and then get a sudden burst of energy and finish it. Sometimes, it's the reverse - I'll jump in and get a good start and then put it on the back burner. I started from 201 and then dropped everything to do other things. You only need to get to 200. I think your post might get me motivated again. WOOT! This will be really great to have when we are finished. To be able to study theory on the road with a "talking book."

I say that the third part part is more more advanced - what I mean is it is more complex and less predictable. The first part was easy - triads built on the an ascending c major scale - it was easy to predict the notes as I entered them. Not so in the third part. There is no way to predict what notes and chords will occur next. And there is much extra notation because every measure contains a multitude of accidentals.

Sorry I couldn't update my version. I think I am going to have to reprogram my computer and start from scratch. Maybe then I'll get some help setting up version 2.0. For now, this is the best i can do.

Stay Well. :)

In reply to by Joe H

Back again, but needing some help. Hours and pages down the drain, I can neither get rid of the corruption mentioned earlier, nor get past it.

See attached file, measure 479 (#141/b, 5th measure; pdf page 212). Deleting the mess, even deleting every corrupt measure and the following blank ones as well as several preceding ones, appending new blanks and renotating them does not help: Notes look fine when doing it, saving also, but reload the file and – voilà, back again! Have done many partly remakes and 3 full ones with different deletions, it repeats exactly and I cannot proceed.

Go to measure 491, select 3rd note (C in voice 1): playback has 3 simultaneous notes, all in voice 1. Select any of the 3, playback has them all. (They are properly notes 5, 8 & 9 in a phrase.)
Curiously, #142 a) looks OK but is not (see playback).
Also, vertically crammed manually adjusted spacing is no problem (see measures 269—84, —331).

Probably, one would nightly get a better look at the file, but the latest version I could run on present computer is 2014-10-22-1409-75d9e76, deleted at update and since then not recovered by me. (Is there a possibility for downloading/reconstructing outdated versions?) I have other computers without restrictions, but until Monday not with enough time.

Joe H: “no way to predict what notes and chords will occur next” in Schönberg’s Theory?! ;D
Well, as with his use of extra-musical symbols, then.

Hopefully, the joint effort will carry friction-less through 2.0 and, once saved there, things too cumbersome at the moment can be postponed until then, then easier done. In any version, certainly trickier luring someone into proof-reading the lot.
All well.

Attachment Size
Schnbrg ToH - Here be ware.mscz 49.6 KB

In reply to by Joe H

Problem yet unsolved. Have been digging around it a lot; trying to isolate it by re-notating several stretches from different starting points (not exhausted yet), going further with the problematic area skipped in different ways (gives no solution, or no definitive ‘health clearance’). I cannot see what causes the measures to corrupt before they have done so, and trying nightly for a better look at the manifest thing causes crash.

I will, hopefully tonight, post a couple of threads to sort out possibilities with other’s help.

In reply to by Joe H

FWIW, there are many more and much worse problems with corruption in 1.3 than in the current 2.0 builds.

I think the way to move forward is to not try to do this as one monolithic file but to break it up. Maybe not one file per example, but group related examples together. Then you can use 2.0's album feature to connect them all.

In reply to by Joe H

So the portion you have done doesn't happen to hit any of the very many known problems, that's fine. But trust me, I know about many causes of corruption you just don't happen to have hit. Anyhow, 1.3 is very limited to 2.0, and is going to obsolete probably in a matter of weeks. So not very appropriate to use for something fit intend to stand as a permanent resource. Plus, having people use 2.0 builds is how we find and fix problems.

In reply to by Joe H

Joe H, you may well be happy with 1.0 as I prefer pen & paper, but should (try notating #141/a and) agree that this is done for others not clinging to outdated versions of the software. The 1.x version is therefore transitional, aimed at 2.0. Consider for instance unison horizontal alignment: It is done manually in 1.x but automated in 2.x, meaning that each manual alignment will count as ‘extra’ offset when migrating to 2.0, and have to be manually re-corrected. (I tested this only recently.) We should therefore wait until after 2.0 update with manual adjustment (which will still be needed then).

I just posted a thread, Help with corrupted measures in 1.3 file, asking for help with whatever sticky mess it is I am still stuck with. Will give it a couple of days, but have exhausted sort-of-systematical tries to no avail. While waiting, I will do further examples. They are simple, fly by fast.

Another thread, Append/insert file into another?, has no answers after a couple of days and probably will not have positive ones, so we should consider having files not joined but spliced instead, and album-bundled in 2.0 . I think file-per-chapter (22 + Appendix) be the obvious way to go, do you agree?

Will stay in closer touch for the next several days.

In reply to by HenJor

I am new to any music software and this is my first project. I don't see any reason that it should all be in one file. It can be stored in sections and users can revise it as they use it and repost it for the rest of us. It may take months or years to come up with the best or most popular versions. That is OK. It is certainly better that we have started than not. :)

In reply to by Joe H

Good. One reason for keeping files few is to keep from having manual needs for general formatting (say, no courtesy keys, meter and rests invisible by default, and so on) multiply with each file – but few means big/long, and I am growing tired with scrolling and the fact that, with this many pages, 1.x needs restarting for the navigation view to reset for another file when differing several pages in length.

Easier then to work with files as big as one’s patience. Splitting into book chapters should be done last, after whatever tweaking the 2.0 update demands. When starting a new file, do it from the by then outgrown file: Wipe it clean, delete measures, save as new file and build from that.

Which chapters have you taken, and which should I do after finishing ch8 through 15 (#100 through 205)?

(Off now for some hours.)

In reply to by HenJor

Maybe following this advice would have save you some headache?

What about doing each example in its own file? It makes a lot more sense. You read the book, you need to hear/see example YY, page ZZ. You go to a webpage with a table of content, click on Chapter XX Example YY, and it opens in MuseScore.

In reply to by Nicolas

Thank you again for input. Yes, file-per-example saves headache for users of the finished material, but not for those notating it. If I notice that some general format needs altering at final stage, I would repeat that action for, say, 5 files much rather than 346. Finally I can split it to practical atoms, but with an actual file append function/hack probably not possible today (Append/insert file into another?) I would keep un-undoable action to a minimum.

In reply to by HenJor

If you need to change style parameters to 300 files, we can hack something. I'm not sure how it works but there is -S option on the command line. So it could be that something like musescore in.mscz -S style.mss -o styled.mscz does apply a style to an existing file. Automating it on 300 files should be pretty easy. Divide and conquer is often a good strategy.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

In the end, we are going to have this available in a variety of formats - file per example, chapters, and all-in-one file or folder. They all have their pros and cons. People will have choices because the users will continue editing it.

#100 through 205 (= chapters VIII through XIV) now done. (Overran Joe H slightly keeping chapters even.) Everything done in 2 files attached, because of corruption mentioned earlier.

I still have no idea what causes corruption in the first file, and backwards stepwise deletion seems not to guarantee a cure. Thread Help with corrupted measures in 1.3 file has no answer and even checking the file in nightly debugger causes program crash. Maybe converting file to 2.0 can stabilize things, otherwise I will rewrite the lot in 2.0 . By now I have quite a tree of versions from testing, and the file here attached comes from a branch with no signs of disease (for instance, it has intact final barline); hopefully OK for 2.0 transfer.

Notation is left barebone and not tidied up neatly (mostly horizontal adjustment and certain accidentals remain) but rather marked red for 2.0 , to keep from redoing things. (2.0 handles things differently from 1.0, see above.) Many measures have been given odd time signature shifts to correspond graphically, this will probably be partly revised along with other ugliness (for instance the makeshift solution to #194 (measure 1267)). Most of the cluttering formatting was done so as to be visible (i.e. time signature shifts and resulting pauses) for further tampering, and is easily set to invisible.

Joe H, I am again weeks ago so is there anything left to chew through? I will try converting my files to 2.0 then joining them now.

Attachment Size
#100-40.mscz 48.53 KB
#141-205.mscz 75.29 KB

In reply to by HenJor

Did you look at corruption details?

Bar 106 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 13/1; Found: 12/2
Bar 267 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/1; Found: 28/4
Bar 268 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 15/1; Found: 12/1

All the corruptions seem to be related to rests being "accidentally" added in stave 2.

In reply to by Fabrizio Ferrigno

To me it looks like an improper use of voices, you're using voice 1 and 2 in the treble clef, but voice 3 and 4 in bass clef, should be voice 1 and 2 too (every staff has its own set of up to 4 voices), to avoid having those additional voice 1 rests.
Strange enough: trying to fix those issues causes more corruptions to crop up in measures 448-457, both staves.

I do not have a copy of the Schoenberg text that we are working on. So, I can go no further with this. If someone would like to finish this up, fine.

In reply to by Joe H

If no one els manages to finish this, I will do it later, but it will be much later, since I left the text on another hard drive. In the meantime, I have started work on another textbook. Exercises in Melody Writing by Percy Goetschius. Goetschious is in the public domain.
https://musescore.org/en/node/63056

And I am now working with version 2.0 of Musescore. I can still do editing on the Schoenberg transcriptions we have done - I can split and join files. I just won't be able to proofread or finish the third part any time soon.

In reply to by Joe H

Ah, Joe H, there you sneaked in timely enough just before me.

You have 2.0 working, good? You know that once you save a 1.x file in 2.x, the older program version cannot handle the newer file. Can you work with 2.0.1 (mainly a bugfix of 2.0)?

Good to see you again (and Goetschius)! Maybe, also, 2.0.1 will cope with Reger’s enharmonic key signatures in his Supplement.

In reply to by Joe H

Hi again. I noticed your posts earlier but needed time to check things through.

Joe H: The text is available under Monoskop. I had 2 different editons borrowed from my National Library of Music, but only partial scans of otherwise illegible detail. Also, if you go no further, please post your file/-s here, so I know what is left.

And damn. Very informative clues at last.

fabo92: Looking at corruption details caused program crash in earlier nightly, as said before. The 3 inconsistencies you listed comes from 2.0.1 ‘Load error’, which is a new feature. I know not whether there are more ones.

Jojo-Schmitz: I see. That use of voices is of course intentional, also as explained briefly before. It may be considered improper by MuseScore, but is essential to music, being a manifestation of traditional 4-part harmony by voice leading; and with Schönberg’s treatise systematically as pedagogically mapping that very realm, and MuseScore offering means, I thought it worthwhile a reasonable amount of extra work to make it read out. Allocation of the 1×4 voices to 2 hands/staves must not be ‘enharmonically’ misunderstood as 2×2 (= a tabulatory voice 1 & 2 right + 1 & 2 left); it is for practical reasons only that scores are monochrome, but the 1×4 rule is kept proof through either plain typography (prime intervals shown as such with double stems/heads) or implicit adherence to (vis-à-vis knowledge of) voice leading – with few exceptions; Schönberg has them too, as noted earlier. One will certainly find a related argument behind MuseScore developer’s choice of 4 voices and different colours.

That strange enough behaviour is exactly what I tried to probe earlier. In 2.0.1 debugger the program no longer crashes, and from your post I have indication but not understanding. In measure 106, I have used from top to bottom Voice 1, 2 (top stave) & 3,4 (lower stave); which translates to ‘Track’ 0, 1 & 6, 7, and in between them (Track 4) is the accidentally added rest of duration 12/2 corresponding to the Load error message. Similar rests are added for other measures, but for this one duration is incorrect? The 3 listed errors all have ‘long’ time signatures (13/1, 12/1, 15/1), but measure 129 (13/1) has its added rest of correct duration (13/1). If the ‘improper’ use of voices is causing the corruption, then why is only 3 inconsistencies listed? I do not really need an answer to this, but a way to safe 2.0 save.

I find it quite odd though, forcing the use of voices to always start with a nominal 1, the more so since one can manually skip that 1 to start with 2/3/4 and have MuseScore keep its count by those formal voice 1 rests, and one therefore expects not corruption from “accidentally” added rests. In short, ‘Voices’ comes with as tiny as deep a reservation to theory & practice, and one cannot be sure to handle >4 voices per system. I find this misconceptional, but understand it coming from my own assumption, and hope it be a 2.0 non-issue.

Rant aside, I will of course renotate all corrupting passages provided they are all accounted for and cannot be handled otherwise by 2.0.

In reply to by HenJor

Henjor - Thanks for that link. I guess I'm still in.

The incorrect voicing was probably my doing. That was my first transcription and I might have used voicing to correct a few measures.

I'm trying out 2.0 now and doing OK. I am pretty sure that everything I have done is posted. I just did part 1 (ex. 1 - 100) and you have that.

I don't know if is safe to download your files. The last time I tried to download an attachment from you, it really did a number on my machine. Please test your files before attaching. And you may want to back up and use the Edit button on your previous posts that include attachments. Maybe you can remove those corrupted files and replace them?

Otherwise, thanks for getting into this with me. It is motivating to have others working with me on this. You mention Reger - not sure I have that text with me. Or is that work finished? OK - I have that text downloaded also. So we can do some of that also.

Earlier on, you mentioned incorporating the music transcription directly with the text. I was wondering how we could do this because we would have a talking book when finished. That would be ideal. We might even upload such transciptions with text to the Internet Archive.

If anyone else wants to download the Schoenberg text we are working on, we could use a third pair of eyes to proofread our transcriptions.

In reply to by Joe H

The incorrect voicing, if by that you mean the long ongoing problem with corrupted measures I have which has only recently and maybe given an indication of its contour, is almost certainly my doing with … integral … use of voices.

If you are doing fine with 2.0, I will gladly skip 1.x and go for backward compatible 2.0.1.

You posted #1-99 earlier, yes, but have you done anything of the last section? You said you would begin with #200 and up, so then I would go from the end at #346 and backwards.

My files are tested OK, so which file caused what problem? I have posted 2 attachments with the corruption, but the corruption is isolated to the file itself, and was duly headed; and the scans on Zippyshare tested by me, them and normally any downloader (and being not an attachment). Please be specific.

Reger has his link in my first post in this thread. I stopped because MuseScore could not then render accurately Reger’s enharmonically redundant key signatures (Db minor and so on). It may me possible now, I have not checked yet.

I do not think it worthwhile trying to integrate text and music examples yet. Too many things must be altered/skipped (i.e. functional harmony, graphical symbols). Better have it compiled as sort of a Table of Content with numbered examples linked to playback, to click when using another source for the actual reading. Having the notation simply work in audio is enough for me, getting it typographically OK is something completely different.

In reply to by HenJor

I have Reger's from your link. Sorry, but I left this project on another hard drive. I had only gotten to about 104. I can pick it up from 100 and go forward, while you work backwards. But I am not sure when I will pick this up again. Had been trying to figure what else to do these past couple of months. Got version 2.0 and settled on Goetschius. May need some time to rethink this again. Plus, I am using 2.0 to transcribe a physical notebook of musical exercises I have been carrying around with me.

I think that by using Insert Text Frame, it is entirely possible to transcribe whole books. Or do you see problems. I would very much like to do this with Schoenberg and Goetschius. We could make a "playing book." Does Internet Archive support Musescore?

In reply to by Joe H

You mean gotten to about Schönberg 204 and pick up from 200? #1—205 is done and I can continue backwards from #346, but now in 2.0.1, OK?

Of course one can transcribe plain text, but musical treatises tend to rely heavily on body text laden with symbols/formats way beyond what is normally expected from a Text Frame, and workarounds (for instance functional harmony composite symbols copy-pasted together from pictures of letters, numbers & operators, and then used as inserted pictures) are cumbersome enough. Theory of Harmony has not many problematic pages, but I simply not the time for it.

About Internet Archive, I do not know. Off to bed now.

In reply to by HenJor

Give me a few days to get caught up. All I have is what is posted. I'll download both my last file and yours. What I would like to do is combine them. Now that I have 2.0. And I wonder if we should copy and split this up into examples per file as we go?

I can resume at the lower numbers that we have yet to do, and you can start at the end and we'll work toward the middle, as you suggest. But I may not move at the same pace as you for a while. May take me a month to get back into gear again.

First, I'll get all the materials organized into one folder again, review and then resume.

I see we have a lot of cleaning up to do, also! Maybe that is why we were advised to do this as file per example first?!

In reply to by Joe H

Great, do so. Yes, I noticed in your Goetschius thread that you are leaning toward file-per-example. I will not partake in integrating music/text/images, but if that portion is eased by already having separate files per example, and batch processing (i.e. hiding time signatures, deleting rehearsal numbers and such) is not a problem, we should by all means go that way. I have done a few backward ones, and the difference is nothing to worry about. So for the final section, do you want separate files?

In reply to by Joe H

I know the file is corrupted, I posted it to demonstrate that very corruption and said so also explaining it, it is nothing virus-like spreading outside of that file, and the problem is still not solved, still welcoming other’s help, and the window for editing has closed weeks ago. Please understand.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Thank you for having another look. Your file is saved in 2.x which may be of importance, as earlier we had to go by 1.x . Would you please explain what you did here? I see the rests now have correct duration, did you renotate anything? I can select their duration value in debugger, but not edit it.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Ahaa… again. With a trick like that there is no need to scratch head over this. Big thanks!

(But still, out of pure curiosity: For measure 268, voices 1—2—3 are in upper stave and 4 alone in lower stave; rests in lower stave comes in voices 1 & 3, but 2 is “missing”. No problem, but why so?)

For reference, all 3 files (in 1.3):

#001-099.mscz (Joe H)
#100-140.mscz (Henjor, Jojo-Schmitz)
#141-205.mscz (Henjor)

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

No, just curious about that gap.

You are right, I just noticed the above links are misformatted. It is the forum’s Insert feature, and funny enough it seems you cannot edit posts with attached material. I had the Edit link and rewrote it only to meet with Access denied upon post. Better use HTML tag.

I have done an attachment list of all files, but have a problem that needs taking care of before posting, so as not to have this thread littered with things out of edit reach. Joe H’s file #001-099 (1.3) from earlier turns up corrupted in 2.0.1:

Bar 33 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 33 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 34 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 34 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 35 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 35 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 36 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 36 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 53 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 53 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 54 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 54 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 55 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 55 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 56 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 56 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 57 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 4/1
Bar 57 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 4/1
Bar 58 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 4/1
Bar 58 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 4/1
Bar 59 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 5/1
Bar 59 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 5/1
Bar 60 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 60 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 61 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 61 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 62 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 62 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 12/4; Found: 2/1
Bar 502 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 5/1
Bar 502 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 5/1
Bar 503 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 6/1
Bar 503 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 6/1

I will try fixing it, but have another errand first. Please hold.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I know, I meant posts with attached files seem to have that window closed much earlier than plain posts, or even immediately, while still showing the Edit link. For instance, I have still that edit link at my post from May 31, 2015 - 8:22pm, while other later posts with/-out attachment are since long locked.

The file is saved in 1.x and opens OK in both 1.3 and 2.0.1, but when saved in 2.0.1 and reopened in 2.0.1, it comes up corrupted.

In reply to by HenJor

I can confirm. The file loads fine into a current development build, but simply doing a Save As then reloading it creates the corruption as shown.

However, I think despite the lack of warning on initial load, the file *was* in fact already corrupt, just not in a way that was automatically detected. If you load the file into 1.3, and look at measure 33, you will see a courtesy 8/4 time signature at the end of the previous line, but no actually corresponding time signature change at the beginning of 2.0. That shouldn't be possible, but somehow it happened. The result is that measures 33-36 shows as being in 8/4 when initially loaded (both nominal and actual durations), but since there is no actual 8/4 time signature, this is wrong. This gets corrected on save / rehload - the measures show as 12/4, since there is in fact nothing that should be making them 8/4. But now the fact that they only have 8 beats is - correctly - flagged as corruption.

I believe saw that once before in a 1.3-created score; I think we chalked it up to a fluke and didn't try adding any auto-correction code.

Anyhow, the fix is to re-add the 8/4 time signature explicitly in 1.3. Same exact thing happens in measure 53-56, 57-59, 60-62, and 502-503.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

“Anyhow, the fix is to re-add the 8/4 time signature explicitly in 1.3.”
Doing so for the corrupt measures 33—36 works for them, but upon reload corruption now occurs later:

Bar 37 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 37 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 38 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 38 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 39 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 39 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 40 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 40 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 41 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 41 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 42 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 42 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 43 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 43 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 44 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 44 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 45 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 45 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 46 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 46 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 47 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 47 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 48 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 48 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 49 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 49 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 50 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 50 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 51 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 51 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 52 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 12/4
Bar 52 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 8/4; Found: 3/1
Bar 60 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 5/1; Found: 2/1
Bar 60 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 5/1; Found: 2/1
Bar 61 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 5/1; Found: 2/1
Bar 61 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 5/1; Found: 2/1
Bar 62 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 5/1; Found: 2/1
Bar 62 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 5/1; Found: 2/1
Bar 502 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 5/1
Bar 502 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 5/1
Bar 503 Stave 1 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 6/1
Bar 503 Stave 2 incomplete. Expected: 28/4; Found: 6/1

Note different fault between staffs, and measures 53—59 no longer listed as corrupt.

Trying now with ‘Expected’ time signatures.

Since every fault (before the resulted change listed in this post) is a shorter-than-expected measure, it is a bit awkward. The trick posted above by Jojo-Schmitz’ is easy enough, but corrects these measures by adding rests, which is ugly. (The added rests also dislocates a lot of subsequent notation. I am not sure whether this happens “typographically or logically”.) Changing the time signature to get rid of rests results (because of Custom time signature causes disappearing measures [No bug; SOLVED]) in losing subsequent system breaks, which is badder. Better go by ugly and, as we will most probably go for file-per-example later, settle for added rests now and renotate those few stretches later.

In reply to by HenJor

Well, you can't just just fix one or two of the problems - you have to fix them all. That includes the missing 12/4 in measure 37, a missing 20/4 in measure 59, a missing 24/4 in measure 503, and a missing 28/4 in measure 504. You should do these fixes in 1.3, because that is where the problems are. Then the fixed file will load (and save) correctly in both versions. I have attached a fixed version of this file for you. Presumably other files created in 1.3 will have similar issues and require similar fixes.

As for breaks being lost on time signature changes, the problem is that it is not obvious where to reinstate the breaks given that the barlines aren't the same places they were before. So rather than make bad guesses and force the user to delete most of them before adding them back manually, its simpler to just let the user add them back in the first place. Normally, one wouldn't be making time signatures after dealing with layout. Layout should normally be the last thing one deals with.

Attachment Size
schoenberg-1-fixed.mscz 34.21 KB

In reply to by HenJor

Not sure what led to the corruption we saw in this file - if you can figure out steps to reproduce, it would be nice, to see if we can reproduce it in 2.0. My guess is we can't, as so much about management of time signatures has changed. But this particular bug seems to have been hit only very rarely, as other than this I have seen only one other score I can recall that showed this particular form of corruption. The type of corruptions mentioned in the above article are much more common, But sure, wouldnh't hut for someone to edit that article and add meniton of this particular problem.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I have no idea how to reproduce or, for that matter, discern it from the thing dealt with in the above article – which in that case should be specific enough, with me not knowing how to reference this issue other than a generic “See also [This thread]”. Rather leave this time-consumer by the side of the road together with heaps of trial files.

I will continue with improper use of voices in 2.0.1 and watch out for trouble but not seek it out.

All I want to do with this is to finish what we started. Let's get it all transcribed the way we have been doing it. We can brush it up and develop it later.

In reply to by Joe H

Me too, so how do you want the remainder? I have done a starting several in file per example, will now tweak things in my old file, that comes from migrating 1.3 to 2.0.1 .

Happily enough, the corruption that has taken so much extra time and effort is not a problem anymore. I will notate as before (manifest voices where applicable) so maybe corruption will reappear. I know not what causes it, but how to detect (2.0.1 reload after save) and fix it (explicit input of ‘missing’ time signature in listed measures, exchange voices forth and back).

I have no idea when I will get back into gear. Could take month just to get my mind resorted. I don't wnt to transcribe the text of Schoenberg because it is not in the public domain. The chord progressions are not copyright, so we are OK withn that. I prefer to jeust get this done in one file, put it away and work on it again after I finish Goetschius.

In reply to by Joe H

I understand and appreciate. You should in that case take Goetschius to the finish before anything more with Schönberg without feeling burdened. I have hands full too, but can take some steps forward in the meantime. It should be rewarding fun, and no hurry.

In reply to by HenJor

That is tempting because I am actually working through Goetschius now. However, I don't think it is good to start something and not finish it. I prefer to finish Schoenberg at least up to the standard that we first envisioned. And we are not too far from doing that last part and pulling it all together. I'll be taking a new look at that text soon. From 200 on up. I'll let oyu know when I am ready to go forward again.

Marc -
OK. I have a new score in front of me, set up and ready to go. Where is the Join Measures thing and I suppose I need to make a couple of measures first? So I will copy and paste the first measures from our last file.

Now what about the example numbering? We were using rehearsal marks for that. But there was some feedback on that before. What other options are there in 2.0?

And there is another issue. In 1.0, I could fill in the treble clef with bloicks of chords by building notes one on top of the other from bottom to top, but when I released the shift key the blocks automatically changed directions to from top to bottom. Now they continue upward and I don't want that for blocking chords.

I guess that is a matter of adjustment. Seems to work alright the other way round, just as well.

In reply to by Joe H

Rehearsal marks seem the best idea to me if you're determiend to do this all in one score. It still seems it would make more sense to each a separate score.

I don't understand what you mean about blocks changing direction when releasing the shift key. There was no such feature in 1.X. But it is true the the order in which notes are added to chords when adding them one at a type via Shift+letter has changed - they always add bottom to top, instead of in a mostly unpredictable order as they did in 1.X (sometimes up, sometimes down depending on the context).

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I should be OK now. Version 1.0 acted differently. Chord building went from botton upward, then you released shift and the cursor would move over but the next note entered would be closest to where you left off. Example - C triad - C then E on top then G, release shift and the cursor would move over but not down. Now it moves down. Maybe I am doing something wrong? It does not matter because I'm back to work on this. That is what matters.

How about joining all of these various files together? Are we going to have collisions? Maybe we should try that before going further?

As I have said before - it does not matter whether it is one complete file or many individuals because we are going to package this in many formats. If you want one example per file, you can make them from the complete file. If we had it in separate files, we would have to copy and paste them all into one complete - so it's six or half a dozen - either way.

Here is the latest starting from #206.

Attachment Size
Schoenbergmeasures_0.mscz 13.44 KB

In reply to by Joe H

I'm still not quite following what you mean about the note cursor - it is no vertical position, so it doens't make sense to talk about it moving up or down. And nothing special happens in 1.3 when you release Shift. But it is true that after typing C, Shift+E, Shift+G to enter a C triad, and then typing C to start another chord, 1.3 would enter that C an octave above the first whereas 2.0 enters it in the same octave as the first. This improvement makes it possible to enter a whole series of chords by consistently doing so bottom to top.

Regaridng the one file versus many - no, there is a definite win for separate files, because 2.0 allows you to easily combine them later using the Album feature, no laborious series of copy and paste operations required. Whereas if you start out with them in one file, there is no easy way to separate them except the laborious copy and paste method. Aoso, things like automatic tools to insert examples into web pages, etc - those would all depend on things being in separate files. Not that aren't *any* advantages to having on big monolothic file, but I think they are dwarfed by the advantages of separate files.

Chord symbols can appear anywhere you like. If they are truly chord symbols, you should definitely enter them as such, or else people using these files later will be not be able to access the chord symbols as intended. The position is controlled by the text style. if you have a set of chords you need to appear in a differen position than the rest, 2.0 allows you to define a custom text style and assign it to those chords. Or you could simply use Inspector to move them up or down.

The number you are seeing over the last measure is simply a multimeasure rest; you must have enabled them inadvertently. You can turn them back off via Style / General or the keybaord shortcut "M".

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

You are the expert. But what we need if we do it in separate files is to set up something like 325 files. This is my first transcription and I just want to get it done. We will do it the way you suggest on the Goetschius project. If you want, you can set up a file for each Goetschius example while I am finishing the Schoenberg. Then I can jump right into the Goetschiun transcription when this is finished. That should be fun because it is only one G clef throughout - no bass clef.

The chord symbold are in Roman numeral form. You do not say how to set them beneath the bass clef.

Concerning blocking chords. Yes - That is what the difference is in the versions, but no matter.

I must have hit M wrong when applying the Rehearsal Marks.

In reply to by Joe H

There are indeed some tradeoffs regarding separate files versus a single file. If you do it in one file, I will suggest you use the new 2.0 "section break" between examples. The idea is to keep as clean a separation between the examples as possible. This would be done automatically if you created seaprate files then combined them as an album, but you can add section breaks manually from the breaks palette.

It shouldn't really isn't about what I want or what you want - it should be what the eventual user of such a project would want. And I really can't think of any context where they would ever want a single long run-on example. Separate files would be the easiest if they were to try to include them in a book / web site - then they could use automatic tools to convert to PNG or generate the appropriate widgets with playback etc.

Roman numerals are neither chord symbols nor lyrics, nor are the figured bass, exactly. We don't currently have a great way of supporting that. I would recommend lyrics since they behave the clsoest: they attach to individual notes and default to below the staff, which is normally what you'd want. BTW, to move chord symbols below the staff, you simply drag, or set the vertical offset in the Inspector, or as I suggested, create a separate text style (in Style / Text) in which the vertical offset is large enough to place them below the staff.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Well - I am thinking of the user and I think that I would want to have it as a book, downloadable in one file at Internet Archive. I want to be able to handle it like a book. I downloaded Goetschius from IA and it came in obe PDF file. I don't want the end product to be a whole bunch of files.

But we will see. I am going to try different ways of transcribing and compiling. The Schoenberg transcription only covers what is in the public domain - chord progressions. Goetschius will be the complete book and while the assembly may be better and easier as separate files, the end product should be the whole book, readable as a book.

This is my vision, anyway. I'll just have to see as we go along. It is difficult for a beginner like myself to envision what you are describing. I must see the different varieties of work that can be done by doing these hands-on projects.

In reply to by Joe H

Well, incorporating the examples into an *actual* book - complete with the text - is the most obvious application i can think of. Or a web site. And these are the use cases where separate files are much better, because then the graphics or widgets can be generated in a single batch job, rather than requiring hours and hours and hours of painstaking work exporting each graphic individually.

And as I mentioned before, if you start with separate files, it is trivially simple to go File / Album and create a joined album consisting of all the examples. So if you do separate files, in less than a minute you could also convert that into a single file. Going the opposite direction - starting with one enormous file and separating it into the various individual files - would take many hours of painstaking copy and paste work, including the need to set up the time signatures again etc because they don't copy.

I just think it would be a shame to see so much effort go into a project that won't be nearly as useful as it could have been because of a decision made early on that is then too late to reverse.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I understand that much. I want to see that happen with Goetschius. But with Schoenberg, we are already knee deep into it and there's no turning back. We can finish this in a month. Let someone else do what they will with it. Or do you really think it would benefit us to stop here and start over? In that case we will have to go over the whole thing and copy and paste anyway. So we are done for. I'd just as soon plow through to the end and then make the next project a little better.

I don't even know what Henjor has to say yet.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

(Quick bounce through at home, am away for entire summer. Will check here sporadically.)

The reason for doing this in big files (multiple examples per file) was for our own overview while notating alone, but that is well outweighed by what format is most easily handled for later bundling into ‘book’ form. I initially thought the most probable use for the entire work would be as 1 file accessible via rehearsal marks, maybe through some linked table of content page, but even then, in 2.0, that is much easier done with separate files to start with, as Marc says.

We have done 5/7 so far, ~250 out of 350 examples, and are not eager to start over; but ~100 examples remain, and since we have now moved to 2.0.1, it would make the most sense doing the rest in separate files per example. Anyway, I must go back over my old file (#~100—200) for tweaking stuff handled differently from 1.3 in 2.0.1, and might as well then also split those examples accordingly. That means for each example to delete pre- & succeding measures and saving as renamed file – annoying but well worth a last effort. (Anyone wanting for instance #185a—e as 5 files may repeat on that level.) It would be a mistake to notate so many as the remaining 2/7 in big block format, when we know that breaking the block up is the first thing a next user will have to do. I have done #337—47 in files per example already as said before, and will finish soon. (Examples are overall much easier than the Devil’s handful around #137, the main concern is doing the text backwards.) Anyone wanting a single .mscz file will have no problem with MuseScore’s Album feature.

We have done the lion's share of the work by transcribing. I say put it all in to one file and let someone else do what they will with it. It will only take them two days to copy, paste or delete to get the single files. It is rote work. I want to finish this and go on to Goetschius. Then we will do a better job from start to finish. I am actually working through Goetschius now and am more interested in the transcription for that reason. I suppose anyone who wants to work through Schoenberg's theory can invest a couple of days in the making of single files.

In reply to by Joe H

You are missing. I will do my last part in separate files, also splitting up the earlier ones, only to then join them all. You will then have a whole file (with the only difference between my & your part being section breaks added to the previous system breaks; easy to Select all and delete if you want it to just look like before), also others can use the separate files without first having to split them.

In reply to by Joe H

As I have explained several times, you don't need to copy and paste to combine files. The new "Album" feature (File / Album) makes this trivially simple, and that indeed is the main reason I keep pointing out how much simpler it will will to start with separate files and then optionally combine them if you wish than to do the reverse.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I understand that much. I don't understand how we will save time and work, even though joining seems like it would. I know that to make multiple single files, we will have to make those files first. That is more work. But not much.

What I suggest doing now is take the first 3 or 4 files and join them together in their order from example 1 to 210. I want to be sure that these files are actually compatible, since they have been started and finished on different versions of MS and files were corrupted along the way.

Here is my latest attachment. Can we get one post with all of the attachments that are suitable?

Attachment Size
Schoenbergmeasures_0.mscz 23.23 KB

In reply to by Joe H

Yes, it means a bit more work for us, but a huge save of time and work for not us but the next user.

MuseScore has been backward compatible all the time, and the corruption problem was solved before my posting all healthy files in both 1.3 and 2.0.1 versions [June 2, 2015 - 7:02pm]. What is not apparent is how much effort has gone into using 1.x instead of 2.x .

In reply to by Joe H

I do separate files named [example number] with no prefix, but such is handled with a batch renamer. You are free to do whatever suits you best, but we DO NOT use the file I just posted, or your trimmed one! This because it has not had those misformats fixed yet, that came from moving from 1.x to 2.x . Also it is unnecessary to use such a ‘heavy’ file, and if one of us would then the other would be locked outside that unique copy. I joined the files just because you wanted to see it work, it is just as easily done in due time: at last.

(Goodnight here.)

In reply to by HenJor

Goodnight. How should we make the multiple files. I suppose set up one with four measures and just copy and paste them. I can add or subtract measures as needed. Is there some way to make a big batch of 50 duplicates at once? I don't care to go through all of the set up operations for 50 files.

In reply to by Joe H

No, copy—paste will mean too much effort because of all time signature changes: You cannot copy music with for instance 2/1—3/1—4/1 into blank measures of straight 2/1 wihout getting a deformed result, and you do not want to pre-counter that deformation by taking blank measures and pre-formatting them with the correct time signatures at the right spots, because not only will that action either add or subtract measures (See Custom time signature causes disappearing measures [No bug; SOLVED].), needing your additional effort to keep BPM count, it means in any case a doubled effort in repeted notation of the time signatures already done.

It is therefore much easier to do as I have said earlier (for already notated examples):
“I must go back over my old file (#~100—200) for tweaking stuff handled differently from 1.3 in 2.0.1, and might as well then also split those examples accordingly. That means for each example to delete pre- & succeding measures and saving as renamed file – annoying but well worth a last effort.” If you know how to do a batch-split-file by rehearsal number, that would be the only easier way, next to magic.

I guess with “set up operations for 50 files” you mean creating each example file, for the remaining but not already notated examples, in MuseScore? That is of course unnecessary (and not expected from a Linux user). Here:
1. Create in MuseScore a blank template file with for instance double the measures needed by average (BPM countermeasure, see above), with initial commonest time signature. Name file ‘Template’.
2. In a file manager (outside of MuseScore), copy file and rename copy ‘222’ after the example it will contain.
3. Open ‘222’ in MuseScore, notate corresponding example into file, save.
4. Repeat for ‘223’.

Main drawback is, if you want for personal use, a big file, we should keep the otherwise unnecessary rehearsal marks in the separate files. (I do that.) They will be a nuisance for the next user to delete manually, but probably easy as pie for someone else than me to take out by script-batch. (And separate files are separate just per GUI. Take a ‘.mscz’, rename suffix ‘.zip’ and have a look. Or open a ‘mscx’ in a text-editor.)

I'm running into trouble with accidentals. I have pitches such as E# and F## to notate. I tried to drag and drop accidentals from the palette but that's a no go. What am I doing wrong?

In reply to by Joe H

select the note and double-click the desired accidental on the palette, this is easier to get right. With drag and drop you need to drop when the target note changes color, sometimes it is difficult to find the spot, esp. if the target note is selected already, in which case it won't change color (in 1.x it turned red, in 2.0 it turns blue, hard to tell the dii to voice 1 color), so you have no clue whether it is the target or not. All that is not an issue using the other method

In reply to by Joe H

Well, we need the accidentals palette for all the microtonal accidentals that wouldn't make sense to have on the palette, and yet it would seem odd to have an accidentals palette that didn't include the most important accidentals.

But as mentioned, the palette accidentlas *do* work. They can be fiddly to get right using drag & drop, but if you are careful, they *do* work, albeit slowly. And they are virtually as fast as the toolbar if you use double click instead of drag & drop (same for most palette items - drag & drop is needed only for a very few elements).

Here is Ex. 211 in a single file. At 150 measures long, it must have been the longest example in the book. Glad that is over.

Attachment Size
211.mscz 34.97 KB

Marc - you said "It is perfectly possible to not have a time signature displayed at all - simply select the initial time signature and delete it in 2.0." But I find that is not working. I would like to design a batch of files without a time sig. How can I do this?

I am in 4/4 time sig. I have a measure with one half note in it with no half rest in the measure. The next measure has two half notes. How can I notate this without a lot of fumbling? The last example I just placed half rests in those measures. But it happens repeatedly now and it looks awful. This notation should appear as clean as it is in the book.

In reply to by Joe H

Why are there are a lot of 4/4 measures with only 2 beats? Seems that should happen only at most, once per example, as a pickup measure. Are you sure those are meant to be 4/4 bars? If it is just an unmetered example that happens to be written using half notes, with different numbers of these half notes separated by barlines, then you could probably do this more easily by making those be 2/4, then using the Join Measures command to combine them as needed.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

No, they are separated measures and like I think I said at the beginning of this project - most theory books in the first chapters only mean to suggest natural time by putting 8 whole notes in one measure. Examples and exercises are often meant to be read and heard that way. I don't know what he means by doing this now. It looks much cleaner without all the rests.

They actually do function as pickup notes because the example are each about three measures long and then we get a double barline and another set of three beginning with that half measure. Remember that there are no time sigs in the book. A half note alone in a measure, without a rest, indicates a half measure.

In reply to by Joe H

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "unmetered", and exactly why I think the Join and Split commands are *exactly* what you want. Feel free to post a scan of a specific example if you want help understanding how to use them to achieve the desired effect, but I think it should be very straightforward and simple. Set an appropriate time signature to capture the "least common denominator" (eg, 2/4 if your smallest unit you need is a half note), set the staff to not display time signatures, then use Join as needed. Or use 4/4 but use Split as well when you need shorter measures.

In reply to by Joe H

Deleting a time signature (whether you press Cut or Delete is the same thing) always creates 4/4, in which case you can use Edit / Measure / Split Measure as I have explained to split any measure into two 2/4 bars, each with no time signature.

But setting a staff to not display time signatures is easy: right click, Staff Properties, uncleck the 'Show time signature" option.

Anyhow, in this particular case, I think 4/4 really does make sense. This is not unmetered music; these are just a series of 2/4 pickup measures is. So going to measure properties and setting 2/4 probably does make sense. It's not that hard, and you can use the arrow buttons in the dialog to move from measure to measure (just be sure to hit Apply before moving on).

Hi. I have an example that only has one stave (treble.) Should I make a file with only one stave or should I make a regular two stave file and hide the lower stave?

In reply to by Joe H

Good question! That's actually somehting I hadn't thought about when suggesting these be done as separate files to be combined later - it's really best if the files to be combined have the same number of staves. I believe we currently do support it in the development builds if some scores have fewer than the default (the default being whatever the first score has), but there have been bugs, but it's probably not such a bad idea to use two anyhow. That's my opinion at least.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

OK - So I'm going with a regular two stave and I'll hide the bottom stave. That will not affect anything else? I mean when we join the files, what will happen? Can you hide a stave for only a portion of a score? Or only throughout a whole score?

In reply to by Joe H

When you make a joined version of a score, it will be a single normal score in all respects. Meaning the Hide Empty Staves option will work exactly the same as if you had created it as one big score in the first place - it will hide empty staves everywhere in the score.

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

I'm not quite understanding. A score's style options are determined by whatever settings you make in "Style / General". I guess maybe you mean, how the initial style settings for a joined score determined? Maybe they are your general MuseScore defaults, maybe they come from the first score in the set being joined, maybe they come from the alst - you could try it and see, but it's possible that this default might change in the future. Regardless of what the initial state of the settings is, you can of course change them, and as for any score, those changes will affect the entire score.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

That does not answer my question. We now have a change in the appearance of the score (I refer to the whole book of examples as a score) for this one part. I am trying to transcribe a whole score for one file (that is my ultimate end - one file.) If I did this all in one file, would I be able to hide the lower stave for one example only and continue with two staves for the rest?

In reply to by Joe H

Again, whether you do it as one file from the beginning, or as a bunch of separate files then combine them *does not matter*. Either way, in the end, you have one score. Hide empty staves works on the entire score, but it only hides the specific parts that are empty - that's the whole point of the option. If you have a score with two staves, and the bottom staff is only empty for measures 231 - 246, then only measures 231-246 will hide the bottom staff. This is not the slightest bit different from 1.3 and does not depend in any way on whether you start off by doing one big score or start with separate scores then combine them.

Now I have come upon a four stave example. Two treble clef staves on top and two bass clef staves on the bottom. No problem?

In reply to by Joe H

Well, yes, just as with 1.3 - you'd need to have four staves throughout, and then use hide empty staves to hide the unused staves for the rest of the score. If you are doing this in 2.0 as separate scores that then get joined, you will have to make sure the joined score has four staves, and the way to do that is to put four staves in the first score.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

That is a problem, because we are all the way into this and finishing up. I will skip that example and leave it to te experts to figure out. I have no complaints. I just want to finish this bugger up! I have other things to do.

Henjor - I am up to #235. I will stop at #275.

In reply to by Joe H

Just a note - Before joing these files, we will need to proofread the whole kit and kaboodle. Check over the detals and that includes breakers at the end of each example or set of examples. We will then make a copy of the whole folder before joining it all together.

I expect to be done with my part this week.

In reply to by Joe H

It is not a problem nor does it take any special expertise - just do as I said. if you are doing it as one file, add the extra staves, use the hide empty option. If you are doing it as separate staves then you plan to join them, make sure the first example has four staves, and again, use the hide empty staves option, on the joined score

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

As I said before, it is too late to do that. We are finishing up. I'll be done in a few days. And then I am done. Anyone who wants to monkey around with it is free to do so. But I am done with it at the end of this week and I'm not going back to try to fix anything.

In the future, someone needs to preview the whole transcription work and prescribe a method that will work from start to finish.

In reply to by Joe H

I don't know if this should have been done as file per example bacause I am getting about 30 or 40 consecutive examples that are only one, two, three or four measures long. It would seem that these could all be grouped into one file. They could all fit on one or two pages.

In reply to by Joe H

They will be grouped into 1 file later, with all the others. Better for now keep to file per example without exception, for batch handling. Next user will have the pleasure of splitting to file per subdivision a)|b)|c)|…, and it will be neither of us.

In reply to by Joe H

Agreed, I am with and beside you, at #310. You should stop after #273, I just now did #274—83 so as to have my part begin with chapter XIX. Whole-tone material (chapter XX) took some tinkering to & fro with voices to cope with atonality.

And that #211 at 150 measures is well the longest, but a smooth ride in plain, regular 4-parts throughout. Have then another look at the long earlier mentioned #137: 117 measures abound with irregularity and systematic paradox, in partly illegible print with several exotic symbols. ;)

I will need a couple of days for the remainder, and another couple for proof-reading/tweaking, and splitting of old files. Hopefully done till weekend – cheers for now!

(My lake is another lovely thing to do.)

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

OK - got it. And I have completed my part. This has been a big job for a beginner. Thanks for everybody's help. I will upload everything when Henjor is done and we can talk about the proofreading.

In reply to by HenJor

Henjor - We never talked about how we were transcribing this. I notated it as close to the book as I could. If he begins a line with a measure with only a quarter note in it, and lacks the 3/4 rest, I notated it with a 1/4 time sig. What did you do? Noatate it in 4/4 and include the rest that he neglected? I had to create 5/4 and other odd sigs up to 11/4, 15/32 and 18/32.

I do not know when I will get around to proofreading. Why don't we put out a call for others to do that part? My eyes are sore!

In reply to by Joe H

I guess with odd sigs you mean #262 (ornament realisation) and such. Best should be to keep everything as visible as possible in working mode, set to invisible for read/replay mode. That gives 2 ways: either notate in even 4/4 and hide signature & rest, or notate 15/32 and hide signature. It should come down to editor’s choice, not needing deep acriby yet. Anyone stepping up after us will appreciate our separate efforts joint and have an easier task uniforming them ‘under hood’.

It is important therefore that the material be posted in whole, intelligibly for both reader and editor. I will proof-read my part but nothing more, heaps of other work is waiting and this has taken more than enough time already, however well spent. There will be differences between our chunks: typos aside, most notable my highlight on voice leading, which has many inconsistencies in its own mainly because of atonical paradox or voice total of >4 – but it will serve its purpose of replay; and your close adherence to original typography, both ad lib at this point. Some things simply cannot be done throughout. See for instance #141/b with its exotic signs: should one approximate, leave out only impossible ones, or skip everything extra-musical that cannot be entered sufficiently in its entirety (and in that case, skip it for those examples or overall; if over all, then for both of us)? Editing ease should rule, here meaning, as said earlier, that we should group elements each to its kind, keeping effective the means of ‘Select all’ and narrowly defined batch handling. Therefore I have used staff text [Ctrl + T] for example subdivision exclusively, musical symbols from Great palette for completing notation where MuseScore otherwise would not (i.e. enharmonic tie Eb—D# where # disappears and must be added if you do not want to compromise the original with a slur), and used Lyric [Ctrl + L] inconsistently for various text, roman numerals, and some exotic symbols (such as dagger in 141/b). Such incosistency is a problem, but not at this stage. I will have an errata note in somewhat order, plus disclaimer, to go with the editable files, and you should do the same.

I have gotten my second wind and started proofreading. I will proofread my files. 1-99 and 200-275. We should be done this week?

Marc - How can I display symbols from the master pallete opn the regular pallete?

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