Notehead offset leaving dot behind

• Jun 15, 2024 - 11:58

When I move a notehead using the sidebar 'Notehead offset' box, the treatment of dots (as in dotted notes) is inconsistent:
- up/down, the note moves with the dot
- left/right, the note moves but the dot stays where it is

Any thoughts on how to work round this?

Dot position is set to Auto, and unlike other 'autoplace' settings you can't unlatch auto, only changet to the two alternative dot positions. It's not possible to move the dot on its own (even though you can select just the dot with the mouse).


Attachment Size
Screenshot 2024-06-15 at 11.56.58.png 20.18 KB


In reply to by rothers

I couldn't find 'chord offset'. But I found a solution:

  1. the first screenshot shows what happens when you use Note-Properties-Notehead offset
  2. the second screenshot is using Properties-Appearance-Offset. Works fine

It is strange that there are two paths to the same thing, but with different results! Perhaps I'm missing a difference here.

In reply to by nedkershaw

Note and notehead are not the same thing.
Note refers to the notehead and any stem, accidental, or dot.
Notehead is just that. No stem or anything.
There are time when you might want to change something about the head, but not the rest of the note.

In reply to by nedkershaw

That's because they are not the same thing. The first is moving only the notehead. Try it with a chord that has a stem. The second moves the entire "chord", whether the "chord" is one note or a dozen. ("Chord" in MuseScore is the supergroup containing noteheads, stems, beams, and dots of all the notes playing in one voice at one time.)

There are a lot of very strange things going on in that image. If you are deliberately inventing your own non-standard notation (for instance, the non-standard time signature, note sizes, key signature) and therefore modifying basic size and spacing settings in MuseScore to achieve that result, great! But otherwise, probably whatever it is you are trying to do, you are going about it incorrectly. If you explain your goal in more detail, we can understand and assist better. Chances are you don't actually need to move the notehead or the note. Unless, again, your own experimental notation is the goal.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks Marc.
It's a convention in making editions of early music to put an incipit bar at the beginning of each line, which shows the first bar in its original notation. For pre-baroque music, the note lengths are often changed by editors to make them more readable for present-day musicians.
For baroque music, like this, note lengths aren't usually changed, but we still have the the first bar in the original notation. For my example I had to add three breves (ie 3 bars) rest before the singers come in. These are added as glyphs from the master palette, and so need to be manually placed; to do this neatly, the notes need to be shoved a long a bit to make room. Hence the need to push the notes to the right.
Hope this makes sense. It's a very obscure use case, to be honest, just for early music editors (and there are some on here)!

In reply to by nedkershaw

If this is meant to be early music, why are you showing a time signature of 3/1 - that is not something that would have been used as far as I know? If the goal is to lengthen the measure to allow that many beats, don't do it with time signatures - simply increase the duration directly in measure properties. Or use the join measures command. Also, there are also ways of creating incipits that don't require resorting to adding symbols manually, and there are also more direct ways of getting the displayed note value to differ from the actual. Feel free to show the original score you are trying to recreate and we can help you achieve the result more directly with fewer workarounds required.

I should mention that I'm hardly an expert in early music, but I've done my fair share of working with it.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks Marc. In this era 3/1 is in fact quite common (excuse the pun). I attach the relevant bit from the original publication (Venice, 1663).
On creating incipits, I'm following the advice of EJW1 who posted his method here:
EJW1 is a well known academic specialising in music of this era.
All the best

Attachment Size
Screenshot 2024-06-18 at 17.08.10.png 454.49 KB

In reply to by nedkershaw

Thanks for the info - I stand corrected on 3/1! Most times I see people use this it’s just because they didn’t know about measure properties and actual duration.

Regarding incipient, yes, the method you link to is basically what I’d recommend. I’m just confused because nothing about that should normally require placing notes as symbols or moving notes around. I also still don’t understand why your notes are so small relative to the staff. Again, maybe there is some unusual aspect of the score you are working from that for some reason requires those techniques, but certainly they shouldn’t be needed in general when producing early music editions. Hence my confusion.

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