Ver. 4.1.1: Strange clef position (see picture)

• Aug 2, 2023 - 10:34

Working in progress on a score; setting a different clef after a double repeat, I get this:

If I uncheck the "Auto-place" check box, things are even more funny:

Is there a way to have a reasonable placement of this clef?


Indeed seems a regression vs 3.x, where there was a difference between applying the clef to a measure (same as in 4.x) and applying it to the 1st note of a measure.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I tried both (measure and note) and the result is the same.

One could argue if the clef should go before the repeat or after (this is the major difference between applying it to the whole measure or to the single note, and eventually it mostly depends on the clef in effect at the beginning of the repeat), but In any case it should not go IN BETWEEN!

Your first example looks correct to me. A mid part clef change should be placed at the end of the proceeding bar, the double repeat requires splitting for this to make sense (clef change does not apply to 2nd time through on first phrase)

In reply to by rothers

It does not look correct at all to me and I am pretty sure I have never seen anything like this.

In the specific case of a repeat:
1) the clef change BEFORE the repeat means that the point to which one jumps back starts with the new clef (tenor in the above sample, in other words this clef is a courtesy clef for the jump back),
2) while the clef change AFTER the repeat sign (single or double) means that the point to which one jumps back keeps the same clef (bass in the sample) and the FOLLOWING part will have the change.

But a clef change in the middle means nothing to me!

Note that in case 1), STRICTLY SPEAKING the following part has no clef change (the bass clef goes on), even if a courtesy bass clef AFTER the repeat is good practice.

There is a complicated way in MU4:


Still have to adjust the leading space for the first note after the clef change as well as the new repeat sign...

In reply to by oMrSmith

Thanks for pointing this out. In fact, I hoped (but I was not sure) that all the involved pieces could be moved by hand. But:

1) It is a pain in the neck!
2) It is fishing for troubles: I have literally thousands of MS 2.x score files which are unusable with later versions because of hand-moved score elements.
3) I hoped MS evolution would reduce the need for manual adjusting, not increase them!

In reply to by oMrSmith

Thanks for the suggestion. No, I haven't tried it, but my use of 4.1.1 is a kind of test.

I am mostly happy with 2.3.2, which does almost everything I need and what it does not, being early music specifics, ver. 3.x / 4.x will quite probably not do either until I code it (as I did for tablatures, figured bass, mensural "time signatures", mensurstrich and so on).

The immediate problem is that colleagues and friends keep giving me MS scores I cannot read with my 2.3.2, so I am trying to "advance in time" and, as I am at it, I am looking if the current version is also usable for my needs (so far, not really).

A less immediate point is that, perhaps, I can convince myself to resume collaborating with MuseScore team and add the parts I need and which are still missing; but of course, I need a "vaguely solid" hope that the bugs and the regressions will be fixed.

This would still be much easier than my "Plan B": creating a score editor of mine geared toward scholarly editions and possibly based in some documented format (for scholar material almost necessarily on MEI). But this is pure sci-fi, of course!!

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