Bar numbers - renumbering
I feel sure there must be a way to reset bar numbers - but I can't find it. If I copy a selection from a piece - as an example - I'd like to be able to set the number of the first bar in the selection to that in the original piece.
If by any chance this isn't possible, I'd like it added as a feature - but surely it must be in there somewhere!
Comments
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/measure-operations#properties
The "Add to measure number" property.
To be clear, though: bar numbering is meant to be completely automatic. Unless you've taken explicit steps to customize bar numbers in your score, everything should work completely automatically. Fiddling with the "add to measure number" setting is only necessary if you're deliberately trying to do something unusual, like have a piece start with a number other than 1. So for example, if you are having the second movement of a piece in a separate file from the first, but you want the measure numbering to be consecutive instead of following the normal convention and restarting from 1. In case like that, or some other special situations, you can indeed use that setting to override the normal automatic behavior.
If you continue to have trouble, please attach the score(s) in question and give precise steps to reproduce the problem.
In reply to To be clear, though: bar… by Marc Sabatella
I thought I'd made it clear that I was copying fragments from another piece. The bar numbers don't get copied with the Save Selection option, so to get the bar numbers back for the fragment explicit action is required.
I was able to do it using the offset method, though I would have preferred an absolute start number.
I'm not sure why the numbering reset has been implemented using an offset method - was there some implementation reason?
It should actually be possible to do both absolute and offset bar number resetting - and the reason I'd prefer absolute is simply because it reduces the number of trips to the original score from which a fragment has been extracted in order to check the start number, and any calculations or trial and error methods to get the offset right for each particular example.
Of course for users who don't want to extract fragments from other scores, the automatic bar numbering shouuld be fine. There are circumstances when the way it is implemented at present is not so helpful.
In reply to I thought I'd made it clear… by dave2020X
Yes, you made it clear it was copying form another piece. But without seeing the pieces in question - as always, you'll get much better answers much faster if you attach your score and give precise steps to reproduce the problem - it's impossible to say for sure why the automatic facility isn't working. it should. It should always give the proper bar number sequence. Unless you specifically want your bar numbers in the destination to be out of sequence? That's what I guess is not clear, and would possibly be made clear with a specific example. If your goal is to deliberately create out of sequence bar numbering, then indeed, the explicit option is the way to go.
The offset method is used because it's much more generally useful. The much more common case for this is things like first & second endings, where you might possibly want the second ending bar numbers to be the same as the first. Simply setting the an offset of -1 (or minus however many bars long it is) accomplishes this perfectly and it updates automatically if you insert or delete measures. Relying on absolutely bar numbers would require you to know the current bar number, and it would create disasters every time you inserted or deleted measures.
So again, if you attach your actual scores and explain your special reasoning for wanting non=consecutive bear numbering, we can perhaps advise better on ways to achieve this result in your particular cas.e But for the vast majority of cases where people want normal consecutive bar numbers, everything works perfectly right out of the box.
In reply to Yes, you made it clear it… by Marc Sabatella
Actually, without seeing an example, I just thought of one possible example that might be relevant in pedagogical materials. If you are creating an educational worksheet that is meant to include excepts from different scores, you might want to show the original bar numbers. In that case, though, you'll also presumably be using section breaks between the excerpts, so the offset is the absolute (well, minus one I guess). I'd personally be more likely to simply add a rehearsal mark for that case though.
In reply to Actually, without seeing an… by Marc Sabatella
Your example is interesting, but it doesn't have to be to produce a document with more than one excerpt.
There are examples in your own MuseScore Master Class Community - and I hope they are useful to those who look at them.
In reply to Your example is interesting,… by dave2020X
If you've got an example of something that shows a possible need for a feature in MuseScore, best to post it here, so the MsueScore development and user community can see and discuss. As it is, if there is only one excerpt, then I'm also not understanding the difference between offset and absolute, they should be the same just as they would be after a section break. A real world example is completely crucial to understanding the desire for this - or any, really - proposed new feature. Without the example, there is no understanding, and without the understanding, there is no way to design the feature or prioritize it.
You wrote:
I thought I'd made it clear that I was copying fragments from another piece.
Yes, but what happens next is unclear.
Example:
Say you have a piece (A) and you are copy/pasting fragments into it (A) from another piece (B). So, you copy measures 31 - 40 from B then paste into the very beginning of A. Do you really want those first 10 measures of A to be numbered 31 - 40?
OK... if you do, then after measure 40 (of those pasted 'absolute numbered' measures), what happens to the numbering of any successive measures of A (i.e., those measures which follow the pasted measures)?
Also, what happens to any existing measures of A numbered 31 - 40 (i.e., the "real" numbers)?
In reply to You wrote: I thought I'd… by Jm6stringer
No - probably not - but that wasn't the use case I was considering.
The particular issue is trying to communicate with someone else who has written the original - and maybe others who are also sharing the dialogue. Another user has suggested changes to the original which only affect a few bars. So it's about shared creation or comment. I specifically want the bar numbers so that if I send the fragment back to the originator then he or she can spot where it belongs and compare with their own version. I'm not suggesting renumbering whole pieces - but extracting fragments and exchanging them with others so that they can locate the fragments in the original works.
Obviously with a certain amount of mental agility at each end of the communication link users can figure out where the fragment(s) fit, and whether there are any significant changes in each, but it's easier if the participants have more clues to enable them to go immediately to where the points under consideration are.
To deny that this might actually be useful and considerate seems to me unreasonable.
In reply to No - probably not - but that… by dave2020X
Check the very first reply in this topic then
In reply to Check the very first reply… by Jojo-Schmitz
I've done that already.
In reply to No - probably not - but that… by dave2020X
Indeed, it's a useful thing - no one denies that. In fact, and that's why there is a feature provided for exactly this purpose (and others too) - "add to measure number".
As mentioned, without a specific real world example posted to this thread, it's really really really difficult to guess what problem you might have encountered using this feature. But in theory, it should be just as easy as suggested - set the "add to measure number" field to be exactly one less than the desired measure number. The default would have been 1, you want 27, so set "add to measure number" to 26, easy as that.
Once again, if you have a specific case where for whatever this doesn't work, we need to see that example posted here, along with steps to reproduce the problem.
In reply to No - probably not - but that… by dave2020X
You wrote:
...that wasn't the use case I was considering.
I was merely guessing. That's why your more specific example helps with understanding what you were considering. Thanks for providing that.
And so, you further explained:
Another user has suggested changes to the original which only affect a few bars... I specifically want the bar numbers so that if I send the fragment back to the originator then he or she can spot where it belongs and compare with their own version.
OK...
You have a collaborative song, let's name it "Our Song". Someone changes a few bars starting from bar 30 and wishes to "send the fragment back to the originator". Presumably, that file must have a name. So, when saving the fragment, why not name it something like "Our Song - 30" which indicates the bar number? Whoever receives the fragment knows to open their own version of the score to bar 30 without even opening the fragment file! No mental agility required to spot where it belongs!
You then wrote:
it's easier if the participants have more clues to enable them to go immediately to where the points under consideration are.
If "Our Song - 30" doesn't get the point across, you can name it "Our Song - changes from bars 30-33", or whatever.
If the changes in "Our Song - 30" are accepted, once the fragment is pasted into the score those bars will automagically be re-numbered. It doesn't matter what the "Our Song - 30" bar numbers were.
However, if you find it useful, or necessary, that the fragment file must start with a bar numbered 30 (e.g., to provide even more clues):
I'd like to be able to set the number of the first bar...If by any chance this isn't possible, I'd like it added as a feature - but surely it must be in there somewhere!
It is possible, and not difficult to do, as already explained.