Old style multi bar (measure) rests
I tried to see whether there is any benefit in trying Lilypond vs MuseScore. So far I can't see many advantages, though some people like Lilypond.
I tried to do the example shown here - clearly Tchaikovsky - in MuseScore.
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/wind-instruments
I almost succeeded, yet the Lilypond example seems to use an older form for the 2 bar rest at the start.
I can see that MS is using the modern style for rests, but how could I get the 2 bar rest notated as shown in this example, with a breve rest (double whole note) symbol with a 2 above it?
Took me maybe 40 minutes to do the example - and it would take me quite a while to learn Lilypond to do the same thing, and then I doubt whether it would be quicker.
I thought it was worth checking this out, though.
[I still think it's a bit of a shame that I can't easily put in visible examples directly into this section of the MuseScore forums. It can be done by uploading to MuseScore.com - but that's a faff just for examples. Even just being able to incoporate images - here a pdf - would be helpful.
Actually clicking on the PDF file attached below loads up pretty quickly in a browser - so not so bad - except not very eye catching!]
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| LilyPondCompare.mscz | 11.7 KB |
| LilyPondCompare.pdf | 39.46 KB |
Comments
Press M
Edit: ah, I see. IIRC this will be supported with MuseScore 4
In reply to Press M by Jojo-Schmitz
M gives the modern style multi bar rests - the "H" form.
Thanks.
In reply to M gives the modern style… by dave2020X
Yes, see my edit above
It is kind of interesting to me that Lilypond would display multi rests like this. Though I'm less interested in being able to replicate it.
![MSmulti.png]( "MSmulti.png")
![sibmulti.png]( "sibmulti.png")
Yes, MuseScore does it this way:
But Sibelius does just the same:
I see different styles from different publishers and different programs.
In reply to It is kind of interesting to… by bobjp
That's the 'modern style' multimeasure rests, MuseScore uses those too (and ever since)
![440px-Old_multirests.png]( "440px-Old_multirests.png")
The Lilypond link above shows an example of the old style ones, but now how or whether Lilypond can create them.
Example for those:
(See example images further down too)
In reply to That's the 'modern style'… by Jojo-Schmitz
It includes Whole Rests, Double Whole Rests, & Quad Whole Rests (eventually Octuple Whole Rests)
And indeed this is implemented in MuseScore 4, see #44846: old style multimeasure rests, as part of last year's GSoC
You can include examples here, just attach a simple graphic format like PNG then click the "insert" button next to the attachment. Way better for simple examples than PDF, which has the whole concept of a "page" etc that just isn't useful or relevant here.
In reply to You can include examples… by Marc Sabatella
I guess you mean like this -
![LilyPondCompare-1.png]()
which was my original example.
Thanks for reminding me how to do this. Trouble is that different systems - well - are different. Some require you to load a graphic to an image hosting site - so thankfully this one doesn't need that. It does, however, require the graphic to be cropped if a lot of extra white space isn't to be put in - though that is relatively easy to do.
In reply to I guess you mean like this -… by dave2020X
To be clear: it's not just "relatively" easy, it's zero additional work at all. When using the image capture tool within MuseScore, just capture the exact region you want instead of the whole page.
In reply to To be clear: it's not just … by Marc Sabatella
TESTING
I agree that this seems to work well if the PDF or graphic is derived from MuseScore - and might avoid the process of export and then doing crop or whatever in an external package.
I would hesistate to say "zero effort", but I agree that it's "very little effort" for those who know about this feature and how to use it.
Just testing here.
The first example is one I happen to have lying around - it looks OK. The second is less good, and I'd probably want to resize it for showing in a comment - and that perhaps would then need resizing in an external graphics package.
Saving to PDF in some graphics packages creates a large page, so the extra white space does then need to be cropped out.
Looks as though this doesn't happen with the MS tool.
Thanks for suggesting the capture tool in MuseScore - I'd not really used it before.
In reply to [inline:test.pdf] by dave2020X
Right, PDF is page based, exactly why it's not the right choice for trying to embed examples. Always use actual graphic formats, not page formats. And again, when using image capture tool, it's the exact same amount ofeffort to select a region with a ton of white space as without. That's what I mean about xeto effort - zero additional effort over what it takes to include whitespace. That is, removing swhitepsace is not an additional step at all. Just don't select it to begin with.
In reply to Right, PDF is page based,… by Marc Sabatella
Indeed, but the example I gave at first was not done by screen capture in MuseScore, but using the inbuilt MacOS screen capture on a file with the selected bars. That method is generic and works with any program, not just MuseScore. You are right that if the MS feature is used then the file only includes the selected image - but I did not know how to use that feature when I first wrote that response.
Your method is preferable for those who realise how to use it.
In reply to Indeed, but the example I… by dave2020X
Indeed, I was talking about using the supported method within MuseScore, not third party tools. But even so, doesn't macOS provide a way to select just the region you want to capture? I actually use the corresponding facility in Windows and ChromeOS at least as often as I use the actual image capture tool.
In reply to Indeed, I was talking about… by Marc Sabatella
MacOS does indeed include a method to save just a selected region, though that has changed slightly in recent OS versions. It seems that mostly this results in a png file. I have probably been too keen to change file sizes and other attributes in the past, as this is often necessary in order either to reduce the file size for sending through mail, or adjust the size so as to get the appearance reasonably OK in various forums, message boards etc. Looks as though the sizes are about right for MS though, so the either the MS way of snapping a shot or the newest MacOS way would be good enough.