Beaming over rests makes stems too long

• Nov 30, 2018 - 07:27
Reported version
3.0
Priority
P1 - High
Type
Functional
Frequency
Few
Severity
S3 - Major
Reproducibility
Always
Status
active
Regression
Yes
Workaround
No
Project
MuseScore

If you move the rest, the beam moves exactly with it, so I think an incorrect value was entered somewhere for the minimum rest to beam distance.

middlebeam.png

Comments

• Dec 12, 2018 - 06:29

This has changed a bit, I think? Now the beams don't avoid rests enough when they're pointing up, and still too much when down.

toolittle.png toomuch.png

Reply

• Dec 14, 2018 - 02:56
Status fixed ⇒ active

Current Nightly, b0c3cf5:
MScurrent.png

MS 2.3.2:
MSprevious.png

What the beam should look like:
shouldbe.png

We're not quite fixed here yet, I think.

Reply

• Dec 14, 2018 - 03:01
Priority P0 - Critical ⇒ P1 - High

Indeed, but not quite as bad, so while it's entirely possible this will get another look before release, I'm downgrading the priority slightly.

Reply

• Dec 16, 2018 - 02:44

According to p.36 of Gould's "Behind Bars", it is the rests that are supposed to move to make way for the beams, not the other way around.

Incorrect:

beaming-over-rests-incorrect.png

Correct:

beaming-over-rests-correct.png

I also noticed that if you try to move the rest manually by dragging it with the mouse, or by changing the vertical offset in the Inspector, then beam will follow (correct), but if you double-click on the rest and move it with the arrow keys then the beam doesn't move (incorrect).

Reply

• Dec 18, 2018 - 00:03

You are supposed to move rests, but not to this extent. Hence the picture. I actually think, after playing with it for a bit that what is happening is the eighth-sixteenth beam is avoiding the rest like a full sixteenth beam, when it should be doing so like a full eighth beam, although I do think the full sixteenth avoids the rest just a hair too much itself.

If you'll note in the pictures I had posted above, the rest was in the same place in every single one.

Reply

• Dec 18, 2018 - 02:12

@Laurelin, my post was a criticism of MuseScore's engraving skills, not yours ;)

The rest is indeed supposed to move that far because the beam is not supposed to move at all (at least not according to Gould). She writes:

> Place the beam in its normal position. If necessary, rests may move away from the centre of the stave to a position closer to surrounding notes

I put the rest as close to the beam as it would go without making the beam move from its default position. The point is that MuseScore's automatic layout should do this for you.

Reply

• Dec 18, 2018 - 15:41

Thanks, shoogle, lol.

Since the first fix made it better, here is a little more detail:
What the music should look like:
shouldbe.jpg

What music looks like if you adjust the rests so the beams don't get affected:
adjustedrests.png

what the music looks like if you leave rests where they should be:
restshouldbe.png

tl;dr: upward oriented beams are fine(when only eighth notes), downward oriented beams avoid rests by exactly 1 sp too much.

Reply