Gradual dynamics (cresc etc) disappearing in parts

• Feb 2, 2024 - 21:43

In a massive project I've been doing during the last month, suddenly the gradual dynamics (cresc, dim - both hairpins and text versions) are gone from all parts - but remain in the score. If I remove and re-apply, they reappear in the parts. I hesitate to share the file since it's a complete re-engraving of a published piece currently for sale. I mostly wonder if anyone else is having this issue?

Update: MOST but not ALL cresc/dims are gone, I am noticing that they're intact in some parts seemingly at random. I have no idea what's going on :(

Copypaste from the about-window:
OS: Windows 10 Version 2009 or later, Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 4.2.1-240230937, revision: d757433


I have had that issue as well (I am still using version 4.1.1), both with hairpin dynamics and with slurs. To correct this, I have to select the items in the score and remove/re-apply (Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V) them as you do.

In reply to by bobjp

Unfortunately, I cannot open this 4.2 score with 4.1.1.
and no, I am NOT going to "upgrade" to a minor release without the ability to test it and go back to my current working version simply because of the file format. MS 4.2 should have maintained format compatibility, or at least enabled saving in a format compatible with former 4.x formats (I bet that absolutely no feature in that score requires the new format). Moreover, the amateurism displayed by changing formats in a minor release does not make me very confident in the quality of developments in that new version (which was, as all previous 4.x releases, quite untested and promptly followed by a bugfix release).

Back to the subject:

> Hairpins must have an end dynamic.
It is desirable (and good practice in some styles of music), but it is absolutely not a strict requirement in general music notation, and countless scores and manuscripts do not enforce this.

If MuseScore wanted to strictly require a dynamic at the end of each hairpin (a rule which could be toggled on/off, with off as the default), then it should automatically create that dynamic upon creation of that hairpin (defaulting to the next dynamic up/down, for example). Otherwise the program creates an inconsistency for a rule it itself created.

In reply to by prigault

If you want to write using notation software, than you need to use the rules that software understands. A dynamic placed on a note with a hairpin in front of it will show up in your version of the software. in the parts.

It makes little difference what you see in general practice. A computer needs to be told exactly what to do. Do your hairpins playback in the score you posted? No they don't. It's like they don't exist. Maybe part creation is saving you the trouble of deleting them.
A musician decides how loud to play a dynamic. Or how to realize a hairpin. Or when and how much to change a tempo. Or any of the hundreds of things that make performing music an art form. A computer just spits out sounds. It has no idea what any of the things that make up musical playback mean. It has to be told everything. I go back to well before computers where a thing. There are things that must be done.
A computer doesn't care about what style you are writing in. It doesn't give two squats about what may or may not be common in countless scores. Which, by the way, are not intended to be played by a computer.
Why would I possibly want the the next dynamic up or down to be the default. I'd have to delete it and put the dynamic I really want.
Personally, I don't miss 4.1.1. Each version has been better than the one before. And for me that includes MU3 which I have no use for and don't have on this computer.
You're right. Nothing in my file required a new format. Your hairpins didn't show in parts, either. Not sure what that has to do with anything. And you can save in a format older versions can open. What format changes are you even talking about.

I write for playback. The new version will playback pauses. Which is a big deal for how I write. Sure, not so much for those who don't write for computer. Too amateur, I guess.

In reply to by Ben Lindeboom

Do you mean Reset ? Here is the choice I have when I click on the three dots of the parts:

The problem with "Reset" is that it restores the part in the same state as when I created it, therefore destroying all the work (layout, visible/invisible stuff in cues, etc.) that I have done on it. So at this point hunting visually all missing hairpins and slurs, though annoying, is less tedious than re-editing all the parts.
And since the problem reported here arises after a certain amount of parts editing, it is likely to reappear after a certain amount of editing in the newly reset parts.

In reply to by prigault

Yeah it's reset for me, I figured it could be a translation or version issue.

In my case I needed to redo the part tweaking anyway, and actually had no idea there was a reset button - so this saved me loads of work :) Hopefully the issue won't arise again, but for now I'm simply exporting every part as soon as it's finished instead of doing a batch export at the end as I usually do.

In reply to by Ben Lindeboom

I am now using the following steps to ensure that features such as hairpins are not lost on the parts, while conserving all the edits that were performed on parts (i.e without resetting the parts).

You need to do that for both types of hairpins.

Go back to the score and click on that feature
- right-click -> Select -> Similar
- Ctrl-X
- Ctrl-V

This reinstates all instances of that feature in the parts. The placement of these features is automatic, so if you manually modified the placement of some of these features in some parts, you would have to do this again in these parts.

Now I just need to remember to always do that as my last edit step before saving or exporting.

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