How to set all measure same width?

• Aug 20, 2016 - 17:40

measure_width.png

Hello.

I want set same width all measure. (ex: red line in picture)
But i can't find that menu.

I can't set measure tight under 1.0.
Any ideas?

Environment is musescore 2.0.3, windows 10.
Thank you.

Comments

• Aug 20, 2016 - 19:04

I keep seeing requests for this. Might it be worthwhile (if easy enough) to have a "freeze bars" capability, say at the beginning, before adding notes, with only whole rests.

The user could set the # of bars per line and "freeze" them, and then add what ever notes they wish.

I completely understand the many reasons why one would not wish to do this, and I'm sure there will then be complaints that the bars are not of a size to contain the notes wanted, but ....

Reply

• Aug 21, 2016 - 00:50

For entirely different reasons, I've asked about the possibility of creating a 'lock-score' tool which would prevent layout changes. As Marc Sabatella has explained (to me, among others), measure layout is done by the program 'on the fly' as edits and new material are added to a score, and to change that would be to change the entire basis of how automatic layout works. So it appears that what you're proposing could be quite difficult, or even impossible given the current architecture of the program.

I happen to be of the school of thought which believes forcing measures to align vertically on a page is not a good thing in general, but I also recognise that there are a few, very specific use-cases where it could be useful. The current graphic controls in MuseScore make this possible (although not easy) without modifying the automatic layout algorithm. But that is a manual work-around, and not what the OP in this case (and other similar requests) wants.

However, thinking a bit outside the box here, it occurs to me that a tablular format might answer. Imagine if MuseScore contained an 'insert table' tool, much as most word-processing and typography programs do. If it did, a user would be able to create a score in tablular format, with each measure appearing in its own column and subsequent systems appearing in their own rows, all aligned according to the user's instructions. It seems to me that this could override automatic layout by presenting the table as a discrete object, something that that the existing layout algorithm could regard as a single unit, only to be broken into groups of rows to fit on a single page.

Perhaps Marc or Nicolas could chime in with their thoughts on this idea?

Reply

• Aug 20, 2016 - 22:39

When I need such an appearance, for canons with 4 voices for instance, I use 4 staves, and fake graphical right bars for the "last" bar.
Ask for an example if needed.

Reply

• Aug 21, 2016 - 20:32

It is normally considered poor notation practice to have barlines align. In fact, even in cases where the content of measures is identical, or similar enough that the measure widths would otherwise be identical, you are supposed to go out of way to force the barlines *not* to align. It's considered a subtle but important hint in helping you not lose your place. Better to go with the default / correct notation than to work hard to create notation that is xonsidered less good. There are certain very special situations where the context might make it acceptable to break this rule, but I don't see that this fits any of them.

Reply

• Aug 21, 2016 - 23:25

Marc, I agree with 99.9% of all you said, including that the OP's example does not fit any of the specialised use-cases (almost all of which are for creating excerpts in theory textboks or method books). And as you know, I most emphatically do NOT approve of creating tools which would enable less-informed users to do things they really shouldn't (because in too many cases, they will do them if 'we' make it possible).

But Xavier's point is well-taken, and there are those specialised use-cases to consider, so I was wondering how this might be done without requiring a complete reworking of the existing layout algorith, which I understand from your patient explanations is pretty basic to the architecture of MuseScore.

In a text typography or word-processing program, users are offered tools which enable them to create text in the four basic columnar formats: Flush left, centered, flush right, and justified. In text typography, this covers almost everything, but there are specific use cases (tables of contents, screen credits, mathematic formulæ, recipe ingredient lists, etc.) where other formats are needed, and those are usually addressed by using a table in which each column can be formatted independently. In other words, if I need a table of contents with the titles flush left and the page numbers flush right, I can do that by creating a two-column table with different formats for each column.

Could MuseScore implement an 'insert table' format which allowed this? Without needing to mess with the basic layout code, I mean? It would address the need for these special use-cases quite well if so. You would know if this is possible, if anyone would.

Reply

• Aug 21, 2016 - 23:37

Since I do encounter one of the special use cases where this is desirable fairly frequently, I have given this some thought. In principle it would be possible to do something like this. There was formerly code to do it but it worked not very well because it didn't handle a lot of real world issues that come up very gracefully. Similar issues come up if we try to provide a way to force more measures to fit on a line than current settings for staff size and note spacing allow.

I think the new layout algorithms being developed for 3.0 might make this go somewhat better if we were to try again but there are still tough problems to solve, like what to do if someone tryies forcing more notes to fit in a given space than actually can given his current settings. It's definitely worth thinking about though.

Reply

• Aug 21, 2016 - 23:59

I completely agree with this: ... "...or similar enough that the measure widths would otherwise be identical, you are supposed to go out of way to force the barlines *not* to align. It's considered a subtle but important hint in helping you not lose your place. " ...

I can also already hear the howls of protest when those 64 sixty-fourth notes look like a smear.

:)

Reply

• May 24, 2022 - 05:35

I am a music educator, and I have some specific instances where I want my barlines to line up exactly. I don't care if anyone "considers it poor notation practice." It's what I want and is what I need. He didn't ask for anyone's opinion on his request, as far as I can tell. He wondered if it could be done, and I would like to know as well. In some instances, which come up fairly often for me, I would benefit hugely from having the ability to align things in a grid-like structure. I understand it may be an overwhelmingly difficult task for Musescore, but that is all I need to know. Not whether or not you deemed it acceptable to write something on which you have no basis for forming an opinion.

Reply

• May 25, 2022 - 01:06

It's not unreasonable, and we do hope to implement this someday. Meanwhile, the best we can do is to help people find alternatives and workarounds. Many people simply are unaware that standard notation practice calls for measures not to align, and it turns out they don't have any special reason for wanting it other than than having seen some handwritten manuscripts where it was done that way and didn't realize this was done only because the people creating those didn't have access to notation software. So helping people understand that is doing them a service. That said, of course there are still exceptions where it nevertheless does make sense to align measures. So we try to help people find the most effective workarounds once we've established the specifics of the situation.

In particular, see my response beginning "Since I do encounter one of the special use cases where this is desirable fairly frequently, I have given this some thought. In principle it would be possible to do something like this..." - but also note this entire thread dates from many years ago, and there may be other workarounds that apply today.

If you attach a score where you are trying to align, we can help you achieve the best alignment for that score using the tools available today, which are better than the tools available in 2016.

Reply

• Apr 13, 2019 - 00:36

in MS version 3.x:

Short operation:
Download Attached style
Copy to Styles folder.
Click Format> Load Style.
select "Equal-Measures.mss"

Optional:
Click Format> Add / Remove System Breaks
Break systems every "4" measures.
click "OK"

Now every note up to 16'th will be written equally.

Long Operation:

  1. Go to Format> Page Settings.
    Select "Landscape".
    click "OK"

  2. Go to Format> Style=> Measure.
    Set the "Minimum Measure width" to 36.
    and make "Spacing" 1.
    click "OK"

  3. Go to Format> Style=> Page.
    Set the "Last System Fill Threshold" to 10%.
    click "OK"

  4. Click Format> Add / Remove System Breaks
    Break systems every "4" measures.
    click "OK"

Now every note up to 16'th will be written equally.

Attachment Size
Equal-Measures.mss 43.4 KB
Demo-EqualMeasures.mscz 19.67 KB

Reply

• Mar 15, 2021 - 08:59

That mss file had been created with a pre-3.6 version, that's all.
It may contain style settings that have been renamed in 3.6 (which then would not be understood and ignored, that's what the warning is trying to tell), it won't contain style settings that are new with 3.6 (and there are a few)

Reply

• Mar 15, 2021 - 09:07

Just save it with 3.6 and henceforth use that, no warning anymore

You could avoid that warning by changing the file's 2nd line to <museScore version="3.02">, but that would really be cheating.

Looking at the diff between the original and a 3.6 copy of it reveales that you gain more settings, gain some bug fixes due wrongly named settings. And that there are 2 settings getting lost:

    <fretOffset>0</fretOffset>
    <fretBarre>0</fretBarre>

No idea whether that is a real loss or just a bug that got fixed

Reply

• Jul 23, 2024 - 14:16

It's not really an accident but a direct result of the math. With a ratio of 2.0 - so half notes take twice as much space as quarters, etc - you get direct proportional spacing. That is, the minimum space required by any measure is directly proportional to its duration. But it is still the case that other considerations (like lyrics) can increase that, so it's certainly possible you'd get some measures out of proportion unless you adjust for that. And a measure that is totally full of 32nd notes won't be able to take as little space a measure with just a single whole note because the width of that many noteheads already adds up to too much space. Still, for the sorts of music where direct proportional spacing is desired (lead sheets, drum exercises), it does work out very well most of the time.

Anyhow, this ratio is an integral part of the "new" spacing algorithm implemented for MU4 that is at the heart of so many other of the engraving improvements.

Reply

• Jul 26, 2024 - 05:54

Thanks for that explanation. This spacing ratio is truly "mathemagical".

FYI, I just edited https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/score-size-and-spacing#horizontal-s… to add the following comparison picture, and tweaked the wording to fit this image in and added "drum exercise and lead sheets" as an example of why one may want a ratio of 2:

MuseScore4_SpacingRatio_comparison.png

Hopefully I didn't screw up the wording. I am afraid many people who may desire equally-spaced measures may give up without knowing about this magical parameter. I suggest the "Jazz Lead Sheet" template may be better with a spacing ratio of 2.

Reply

• Jul 26, 2024 - 14:35

It's kind of debatable about lead sheets. It's true that back in the days of hand-written charts, it was common just for expediency to divide the system into four before starting, just to make it easier to quickly write out charts without worrying about margins. And there is some value in spacing that gives chord symbols more direct proportional spacing, and therefore some publishers continue to use this type of spacing. But it's by no means universal, and the usual reasons why one might want to avoid lining up barlines (e.g., to give each a system a more distinct character so the eye doesn't get lost) still apply. Personally I find a ratio of around 1.8 is a good compromise in many cases. It would be good to do a survey of the literature and try to find some sort of consensus best practices.

Reply

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