Contributing pdf's
How can I contribute a score prepared in 1.3 as a pdf? Later versions of MuseScore mess it up. I haven't found a way to contribute a pdf. All help appreciated.
We_gather_together r2020.mscz We_gather_together r2020.pdf
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
If by "contribute" you mean "upload to musescore.com" then you'll need to rework your score in the current version.
In reply to If by "contribute" you mean … by jeetee
Thank you. I was afraid of that. If it winds up a pdf, I don't see why they don't accept it as a pdf. If it doesn't wind up a pdf, will it still be readable when new versions of MuseScore come along?
In reply to Thank you. I was afraid of… by jwpratt
As for why the website won't accept a PDF upload: one of the main features of the .com website is the playback of scores, which requires the original MuseScore file. The software can't know how the score should sound with just a PDF, since a PDF doesn't actually store the information about pitches and instruments, just a visual representation of them. It would be like asking a computer to play back a picture of a physical score you took with your phone.
In reply to Thank you. I was afraid of… by jwpratt
pdf is but one of the export formats offered over at .com and not a music format. That is why .com doesn't accept it as input.
In reply to Thank you. I was afraid of… by jwpratt
Not sure what you mean by "it winds up a pdf". but to be clear - while MuseScore certainly provides the option of exporting a picture of your score as a PDF or PNG, that picture is not your score, any more than a picture of your car is a car. Your score is the MSCZ file. Uploading pictures of scores doesn't work; the website needs the actual score.
In reply to Not sure what you mean by … by Marc Sabatella
Yes, I understand that a pdf is not a MS file. My object was to make a pdf available, especially to people like me who play "We Gather" every year and would like to spice it up a little. Try it--you might like it! Making it convenient for people to alter my score was not an objective, though I can't object and am open to suggestions for improvement. I am puzzled about one thing though. Two of my other scores have appeared for public consumption. I don't remember doing anything to facilitate that, and they are certainly not the ones I would have picked of the many I have prepared for my own use in sing-alongs. They must also have been prepared in 1.3, yet they are directly readable. How is that possible? And will my version of "We Gather" be readable in later versions of MuseScore or will it be messed up as the 1.3 version is in 3.6? I'm not talking about the words--that's for another response.
In reply to Yes, I understand that a pdf… by jwpratt
I see 2 scores of you, deom December 2013, so surely MuseScore 1.x.
Back in the day scores saved online were Public by default, but could get marked Private.
You can change them to Private even now.
Score created (or rather: last saved) in 1.x are readable in any later version, but will look different. Often better. But sometimes, esp. if a lot of manual interventions were used, they can look quite messy too
In reply to I see 2 scores of you, deom… by Jojo-Schmitz
I don't mind if they are public, especially since the way I found out about it was that someone liked them. I might well add others if I knew how without having to go via 3.6. I am very surprised that those are the only ones. More on lyrics and stems later. Electricity is off and battery low.
In reply to I don't mind if they are… by jwpratt
You can still "Save online" with MuseScore 2.x and they'll be rendered with a 2.3.2 backend. For 1.x scores you can't (the authorization doesn't work), but you can upload those directly on musescore.com. I'm not sure whether there's still a 1.3 backend, but believe so.
When in doubt, try it out...
In reply to Yes, I understand that a pdf… by jwpratt
You are welcome to share PDF on any of the various sites that exist for that purpose. But musescore.com has a different purpose - sharing the actual scores, complete with playback, the possibility of downloading, transposition, etc. So if you want to use that site, you need to share in MuseScore format, simple as that.
As for your other scores, if they are on msuescore.com, then yes, at some time, you uploaded the score itself, that's the only explanation. That is, you didn't upload the PDF, you uploaded the MSCZ file. Same with 1.3 as with3.6, same with scores created 10 years as scores created today.
A score created in any given version of MuseScore will be readable in future versions as well. how good it looks depends mostly on how correctly you entered the score. As mentioned, the one you attached here has a number of problems in it, things that were entered incorrectly and that's why they look different between 1.3 and 3.6. Other than the words, it's not clear what you might mean. Another source of problems are cases where one makes a manual adjustment to the position of a symbol to workaround a bug or bad default or other limitation in a given version of MuseScore. Once that problem is fixed, you manual adjustment becomes unnecessary and in fact counterproductive, because now it is applied relative to the improved default. So often, it takes a few extra moments to clean up those superfluous adjustments.
In reply to ou are welcome to share PDF… by Marc Sabatella
The only “incorrect” entries that I know of are the staff text instead of lyrics, and that ought to update easily and in fact didn’t cause any problem. I made a lot of adjustments to locate rests and dynamics better, get ties on seconds parallel, flip stems for better fit, etc. If I missed a bet, I’d like to know about it. So far I’m not convinced. Anyway, I am not saying updating requires more adjustment than it should, though I am surprised how badly misplaced the title, composer, and lyricist were in this score, however I entered them in days of yore. And whatever sin I committed, I don’t see why the spaces were removed from the lyricist and the text there centered instead of flush left. I do find updating generally requires so much adjustment that I find it preferable to stay in earlier versions when I find I want to make changes. 3.6 may be great, but earlier versions were very adequate for my purposes (and I am grateful for them). I did succeed in updating, though, and will submit a score so anyone who wants can modify it, complain about my methods, etc. Btw, the playback is amazingly good, much better than I expected for piano, and enabled me (actually my son) to make a virtual sing-along out of about 20 relatives' recordings of themselves singing along to an mp3.
I have tried the lyrics facility many times over the years and retain the impression that it is great for a very loose score and hopeless for a tight one. Just for fun (I must be a masochist), I tried entering the words as lyrics on the score under discussion. The original staff text was Ariel 11 pt. and required 10 systems. Lyrics in Edwin 9 pt adds 1 system (10 %). Edwin 11 pt adds 2 systems (20%). Bahnschrift 11 pt, possible to read with somewhat poorer eyes, adds 1 system + 2 measures. The expansion was less than I expected, but still would require a smaller space size to fit on two pages (letter size).
In reply to The only “incorrect” entries… by jwpratt
In case you were wondering about which other weird formatting stuff that is now working against you:
1.) Title frame with a height of negative 1sp: Turn on "automatic height setting" or set an explicit height of around 8sp. Reset the margins on it.
2.) Lyricist added as staff text on the 2nd beat of the first staff instead of as the Lyricist to the title frame. After adding it as Lyricist, set the font back to "FreeSerif" to match the old default textstyle
3.) A) Displaced noteheads instead of their chords (eg m7 the bottom staff notes that are cross-staffed)
B) Displaced visible rests (such as m6 voice 4 quarter note rest).
C) Extremely displaced hairpins, such as the hearpin of m28-29, which has a vertical offset of 94sp!
D) Some other manual displacements that are no longer required due to better automatic placement
→ Ctrl+A, Ctrl+R to reset all of the score positional information back to default.
4) Different default scaling; MS1.3 had a default scale of 1,6mm for an sp; the default of MS3.6 is 1,764mm for an sp; adjust page settings to 1,6 again.
As for the Lyrics, why not give them the same font as before? Different fonts have different widths, so why not also assign the new lyrics as Arial 11pt?
You've also used fairly tight spacing on them in the original document (leaving out dashes at some places for example). One step would be to change the minimal distance setting for the lyrics from the current value of 0,25sp to 0,1sp
At this points you'll notice that the spacers have become entirely obsolete, so remove them.
The 3rd system now also just overflows and created an orphaned measure, select all of them (3rd system and that single measure 4th system) and issue the "reduce stretch" command once. They'll all pop nicely together again.
After fixing the X-offset of the multivoiced chord in m31 the final system now also fits onto the page. A little more fine tuning in the lyrics styling (margin-above setting) and re-fixing some slur directions and the first page is looking already quite well.
I've also fixed the vertical style setting for the dynamics and reanchored them to the top staff as they should be.
The first system on the 2nd page can again be fixed by just a single decrease of stretch. Then we fix the text of the ottavaBassa line in m51-52. and the chord order in the top staff of m51.
You'll now notice that MS3.6 even fits an additional measure onto the 2nd to last system compared to your PDF. It also squeeze the con-gre-ga-tion es-cape lyrics not ideally, so slightly move "con-" to the left, "-tion" and "es-" to the right.
Flip the ritardando to between the staves (shortcut 'X'); hide the explicit tremolo and add the "tremolo ad lib." as a staff text to the bottom staff, flip its placement to "below".
That all took me about 45mins (without knowing your score, including writing this out). So indeed not something you'd want to do for all your scores per se, but also not an insurmountable task if you do wish to publish them with the current version.
I also took the liberty of slightly tweaking the playback of the ritardando, the tremolo and the fermata at the ending.
In reply to In case you were wondering… by jeetee
Almost correct: MuseScore had the default space set to 1.764mm, just like MuseSore 2 and also MuseScore 3, prior to 3.6, where it got changed to 1.75mm.
In reply to Almost correct: MuseScore… by Jojo-Schmitz
I have mostly been using 3.5alpha, though I might have tried 3.6 for this business. Either way, I am still puzzled that one system in 1.3 was broken in 3.x.
In reply to In case you were wondering… by jeetee
Thanks. All very interesting, and perhaps I can use some of your methods advantageously. I had no idea the weird stuff would be working against me several editions and years later. I looked (rather desperately) for some way to get the layout I wanted in 1.3. But there are many things in your version that I would still want to change, so I doubt I will use it directly.
My 1.3 sp was 1.764. Are you saying I actually changed it to that from 1.6? Anyway, the systems fit as they were in 1.3 with sp 1.764 so I am still puzzled why not in 3.x. If I am right that you actually used sp 1.6, then your fit and my 1.764 fits aren't comparable. Btw, I think M63 actually fit on the previous system originally and I put a system break before it when I hadn't dolled up the end (M67 on) and the last system was rather sparse.
I certainly plan to fiddle with fonts and such. I have actually experimented and find Bahnschrift most readable per inch despite just about everyone's prejudice against it. I prefer page numbers at the top to get them out of the way of the footer and because they are easier to find there. I prefer measure numbers tucked close to the treble clef sign. I have to say, I dislike the current defaults for them, especially measure numbers.
The playback tweaking at the end was hasty when I decided to attempt a long-distance singalong. If we again don't have the annual extended-family Thanksgiving, I may offer people a chance to add new voices, but of course it would have to be with the same piano recording. Perhaps I could use your tweaking on the version I upload, if I ever do.
In reply to In case you were wondering… by jeetee
Thanks. I am too far along with my improper methods to change now, but I have a few comments/questions, in case you are moved to respond.
I did look for automatic height setting in 1.3 (I think) and couldn't find it.
On my screen, the composer looks fainter than the lyricist. I don't know how the latter came to be in the style that it is, but I don't see how that would explain it.
In my 4th system, the last two measures are forcing an increase in the staff spacing. In your 4th system they don't. I can't see any difference that would explain it.
A dynamic that applies to both staves, like the initial mf, will usually have to be adjusted. I'm not suggesting that there should be a special way of entering it. That would add more complexity than it is worth.
I copied in your playback rit. I hope I got it right. It's hard to see what's attached to what. It seems you have to move it.
I changed the lyrics to Bahnschrift (with some difficulty because I didn't realize you have to remove special formatting). Bahnschrift solves Ariel's Illinois problem; in particular, it gives a little more space around i, though il is still too tight.
I feel as though I have already mentioned that fitting an extra measure onto the 2nd to last system has been possible all along, but wasn't desirable until stuff got added to the last system.
Thanks again.
We_gather_together r2020 in 3.5.mscz
In reply to Thanks. I am too far along… by jwpratt
You wrote:
I am too far along with my improper methods to change now...
I took a look at your attachment: We_gather_together r2020 in 3.5.mscz
and I have read jeetee's extensive reply above.
To drive home one of his points....
Suppose someday you wanted to change the first note of the intro. from a C to a G (in the treble clef):
![Edit_note.png]( "Edit_note.png")
See? A pretty dramatic result.
Pressing the up arrow key to arrive at G will also affect the text (by moving it), as will any layout changes.to the first system (for example, placing fewer measures on that line).
In reply to You wrote: I am too far… by Jm6stringer
Moves, not disappears, and easily fixed. If I had found a good way to enter a two-line lyricist in 2013, I would have used it. How it got to be fingering, I have no idea, and that's why it moves. Staff text wouldn't. I just read the handbook, and even now entering lyricist correctly looks hard to figure out and elaborate compared to just adding the text you want, incorrect as that may be. If I did it every day, it would be another matter, but I only do a few scores a year.
If the notes began on the first beat and I wanted to add Allegro, how should I have done it in 2013 or do it now? That would be useful to know.
In reply to Moves, not disappears, and… by jwpratt
The method to enter a 2 line lyricist was the same back in 2013 as it is now: right click into the title frame, Add > Lyricist, start to type, including a line break.
Staff text would move too, at a certain point, to go out of the way of notes (not back in 2013 though).
Using Fingering for a Lyricist was misuse back in 2013 and still is.
"Allegro" would have been tempo text back in 2013 and still is in 2021.
In reply to The method to enter a 2 line… by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks. Yes, even I would not normally use fingering style for a lyricist, and it's a mystery how it came about. Since my fingering-style lyricist looked a little different from my composer despite both being Edwin 10 (darker, slightly different line spacing), I tried to change it to composer style without starting over, but couldn't find a way, nor could I copy it into another text entry.
Tempo text brings up the metronome. I now realize that one can type in allegro and delete the MM. Getting there and doing that is a little harder than entering system text, but would be worth it. I hope I remember that when I need it.
In reply to Thanks. Yes, even I would… by jwpratt
There's an Allegro in the tempo palette
In reply to There's an Allegro in the… by Jojo-Schmitz
My point was that you sometimes want to add text and it will be attached to a note (or rest), so attaching to a note is not in itself a no-no. Allegro was a poor example. Perhaps a movement title, unless there's a special way to do that too. Attaching text as fingering is obviously beyond the pale. I wish I knew how I did it, and how to get the resulting font weight on other text.
In reply to My point was that you… by jwpratt
Movement titles would normally be added within a frame, which are not attached to individual notes but are instead inserted between measures or systems.
Fingering is added via Add / Text / Fingering and/or the palette, pressing Space to move from note to just just as for lyrics or chord symbols.
Not sure exactly what you mean about getting the resulting font weight on either text, but if you use the Inspector to set the font for one text element, press the set as style button ("S" icon) to then make that the default for all other text elements of that same type. Eg, you can easily get all fingering to use one style, all lyrics another, all titles another, etc.
In reply to Movement titles would… by Marc Sabatella
I was referring to this, from an expert.
I see a similar effect and wonder if it isn't caused by the fingering style itself; for which I believe the "non-bold" version is still styled to semi-bold internally to give distinct weight to the fingering numbers.
Whatever this was, I didn't find it offered for other types of text.
A more serious problem. I finally uploaded something, and the text lines came out wider than the music lines on the screen, though when I download to my MS3.6 it appears fine. The difference is much more than A4 vs letter (and I don't see why they should differ anyway). The pdf option is not fine. Even if it could be avoided by attaching lyrics note by note, it seems to me it shouldn't happen.
In reply to I was referring to this,… by jwpratt
> "A more serious problem. I finally uploaded something, and the text lines came out wider than the music lines on the screen, though when I download to my MS3.6 it appears fine. The difference is much more than A4 vs letter (and I don't see why they should differ anyway). The pdf option is not fine. Even if it could be avoided by attaching lyrics note by note, it seems to me it shouldn't happen."
When I export locally to PDF it seems to be fine to me; so if the website display and the PDF generated there aren't correct, that's likely because the webserver doesn't have the "Bahnschrift" font available. Thus making it substitute whichever fallback font it has.
In reply to Movement titles would… by Marc Sabatella
The font-weight comment is about something that seems puzzling to me as well: I've horizontally moved the texts closer together for easier comparative purposes:
![325020-fingering-composer.png]( "325020-fingering-composer.png")
To the left is the text that is a displaced Fingering Text element, to the right is the Composer Text.
Both texts are (according to my inspector) set to Edwin, 10pt, not-bold and following staff size.
But to me the fingering text looks to be slightly heavier in boldness (though not bold itself), than the composer text.
In reply to Thanks. I am too far along… by jwpratt
I'll quote some of your points to make it clear which ones I'm addressing.
> "I did look for automatic height setting in 1.3 (I think) and couldn't find it."
I believe that setting was only added at around 3.5/3.6. In 1.3 you'd indeed have set the height explicitly.
> "On my screen, the composer looks fainter than the lyricist. I don't know how the latter came to be in the style that it is, but I don't see how that would explain it."
I see a similar effect and wonder if it isn't caused by the fingering style itself; for which I believe the "non-bold" version is still styled to semi-bold internally to give distinct weight to the fingering numbers.
> "In my 4th system, the last two measures are forcing an increase in the staff spacing. In your 4th system they don't. I can't see any difference that would explain it."
I think the cause is the rest on the first beat of m28. It seems as you've moved the rest upwards from the bottom staff, whereas I've also cross-staff notation displaced it onto the top staff, then used the arrow keys to move it visually downwards again.
If on your score I select that rest and just press the downwards arrow once or twice you'll notice the system comes closer together again.
> "A dynamic that applies to both staves, like the initial mf, will usually have to be adjusted. I'm not suggesting that there should be a special way of entering it. That would add more complexity than it is worth."
The trick here would be to add the first one, use the Inspector to move it downwards a bit (Y-offset) and then press that "set as style" button ('S' at the righthand side) for it. This'll automatically apply the same vertical offset for all of those dynamics. The horizontal offset is likely indeed more on a case by case basis.
> "I copied in your playback rit. I hope I got it right. It's hard to see what's attached to what. It seems you have to move it."
I use a plugin for those hidden tempo markers: https://musescore.org/en/project/tempochanges
> "I feel as though I have already mentioned that fitting an extra measure onto the 2nd to last system has been possible all along, but wasn't desirable until stuff got added to the last system."
As with any and all layout decisions, it's an editorial choice :-)
I think the main takeaway is still that the effort of updating scores across two major versions will never be hassle free. And the less workarounds/"misuse" happened in the older versions, the less rework will be needed in the current versions.
Whether the conversion hassle is worth the effort to you (for example because you wish to share it online via .com) is entirely a personal choice. There are plenty of us that keep portable versions of 1.3 and 2.3.2 around for small edits to older scores.
In reply to I'll quote some of your… by jeetee
6, 7. NC
The takeaway, I agree. I have updated We Gather for the experience and to let the pros have fun if they want. Other scores like the ones some people "liked", we'll see.
Thanks again.
In reply to The only “incorrect” entries… by jwpratt
As shown by @jeetee, the displacements you mention were mostly in error - the markings were added incorrectly and then adjusted to look correct. Those simply needed to be fixed (eg, re-add the marking to the correct location). In some cases, the adjustments were added to overcome bugs/limitations in the 1.3 layout, and now that the defaults are so much matter, those adjustments simply need to be removed.
Entering things incorrectly isn't a "sin" - we all make mistakes. The point is, MuseScore does go to some lengths to preserve correct layout, but it's next to impossible to preserve the same layout for scores entered incorrectly - not wif we are to also make improvements in the defaults, which we do, by leaps and bounds. So it's important to learn the correct techniques if one is to avoid problems in the future. In other words, we don't point these things out to scold you, but to help you save time in the future. Please take our advise in that spirit.
Meanwhile, it's always a good idea to keep older versions of the software around as well to have an easy way of just tweaking something here and there if you don't want to take the time to fix the errors.
In that score you misused quite a few things. Like you didn't use lyrics but staff text, and flipped slurs/ties and stems, because of usining the wrong voices.
Also there's no way that PDF to stem from exactly that score, not even in 1.3, it differs at least in the 2nd to last system (and its system brake / the way the staff text is split) and the slurs in bass clef in measure 50-51
Attached a MuseScore 3.6.2 conversion of it
In reply to In that score you missused… by Jojo-Schmitz
This was prepared for the pianist (me). The singers were using an ordinary hymn book without the music for the 2nd and 3rd stanzas. The text is very familiar and its fit to the notes very natural. I just wanted it there in case. Adding the text as lyrics would have required it to be very small even to preserve system breaks, and smaller yet to avoid unnatural spacing of the notes, even with the current lyrics facility.
I used voices to deal with simultaneous notes of different duration. Voices aren't really voices in this kind of music. To use them also to control stem direction, if possible at all, is a game not worth the candle when Ctrl x is so easy.
I did play with the final chord and the Amen more recently. I don't know exactly how that relates to the version I attached. The pdf I sent, which I can't now find, is probably closer to what I want to upload than the MuseScore score I sent. That's the point, in fact.
I see that you had the same problem I did in the last systems. For some reason, 3.6 changed the paper from letter to A4, which you didn't, but even with letter width, 3.6 breaks one system that didn't break in 1.3. I checked everything I could think of (note to note spacing and the like) without finding an explanation. Spacing tightness was looser in 1.3 than 3.6. I definitely prefer the system breaks in 1.3 to those in 3.6, even if the end has to be squeezed, because of the more generous system spacing resulting.
In reply to This was prepared for the… by jwpratt
Yes, 1.x allowed for a denser spacing.
A4 and letter have the same width (give of take a millimeter), but different length
In reply to Yes, 1.x allowed for a… by Jojo-Schmitz
A4 is 210.00 mm wide while letter is 215.90 mm wide. The difference is slightly under 3% (slightly over in the printed portion with 10 mm left and right margins). The difference has mattered to me on more than one occasion. Not surprising since I often make just enough adjustments to get a system on one line. I don't know if MuseScore changed the paper width when updating or you did. The difference in length, of course, matters even more to the number of systems on a page.
In reply to A4 is 210.00 mm wide while… by jwpratt
It might have been me that changed the paper format, when I reset all style settings to the 3.6 defaults. Which on my system also means A4. But I very much doubt that with letter those last 2 systema would have fitted one system