Help managing rests MU4.1.1
Chromebook/linux Mouse imput
Looking for alternatives for managing like rests- same beat(s)- multiple voices- same staff.
*Hint: been there done that....it does not work.
Any thoughts/suggestions?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
Please post some kind of score with examples.
In reply to Please post some kind of… by bobjp
Check jm6stringer post
Not sure what you mean by "managing rests", but...
![rests.png]( "rests.png")
If you right click on an empty part of the staff and choose Staff/Part properties, there is a checkbox "Merge matching rests'.
This allows for like rests in different voices to be consolidated:
In reply to Not sure what you mean by … by Jm6stringer
Managing rests was exactly what you thought. My Hint was exactly your choice and as I said it 'does not work'. Yes, it will do one measure but it will not do a movement. It is very inconsistent. Some measures yes and some, for whatever reason, no. I did not notice anything common as to why. I had to move through a 120 page work. Some were merged and some not. So, for me the feature does not work. Also, after being shut down for 3 days, when I started everything new and fresh the 'merge' box was still checked! Experience and trial showed that sometimes unchecking the box also merged some?
It would be a perfect feature if it worked consistently. Thanks for the thought.
In reply to Managing rests was exactly… by R. L. F.
You wrote:
It is very inconsistent. Some measures yes and some, for whatever reason, no.
Okay, so check bobjp post above.
In reply to You wrote: It is very… by Jm6stringer
Check my response to bobjp
In reply to Check my response to bobjp by R. L. F.
Your response to bobjp was to: "Check jm6stringer post."
I know, I'm Jm6stringer and I posted that, along with the illustration.
bobjp (in his post to which I referred) wrote:
Please post some kind of score with examples.
--Also--
Regarding merged rests, you wrote:
Some were merged and some not. So, for me the feature does not work.
So, in case it's unclear, please post a score that you have issues with.
Posting examples that you say don't work, along with an explanation of what you expect to occur and what happens instead will allow someone here to figure out if, in fact, the feature does not work, as you claim - and, if it doesn't work - the reason why.
The forum works best when you post an actual score with the problem you encounter.
This:
Hint: been there done that....it does not work.
Does not help anyone.
In reply to Your response to bobjp was… by Jm6stringer
Sorry you did not have time to read all the posts in this thread, as I answered all you mentioned about. If you really do not understand 'some were merged and some were not', I do not know how to make that any clearer. As to the request for examples your post showed exactly that and I also told exactly why I had no score to post!! Sorry you did not read that. I also told what I did to try to use the function. It is a one chance only. It totally works or it does not. No second chances. So, because it did not merge all the like rests for the part....Yes, it does not work for me.
Now from this side of the forum, it would be most useful if someone else would make the effort to reproduce the issue. I already know it does not work for me. It would be interesting to know if someone else's score functioned correctly or not. And as I said it was a 100 page score, so one measure is not enough to test.
No, I knew 'been there done that' would not help other than to tell you I expected your response. And....I was correct! Thanks for comments
In reply to Sorry you did not have time… by R. L. F.
I did read all the posts.
You wrote:
If you really do not understand 'some were merged and some were not', I do not know how to make that any clearer.
To make it perfectly clear, please post your score and tell us which rests specifically it does not merge for you. It does not have to be a full 100 page score, but a page or two which shows instances where it does not work for you.
Also, see:
https://musescore.org/en/node/350377#comment-1204759
and read the last sentence.
Sorry, but also see:
https://musescore.org/en/node/350377#comment-1204820
and read the last paragraph.
So, I did read all the posts (and not only in this thread).
You wrote:
As to the request for examples your post showed exactly that.
My post showed exactly how it properly works.
You claim it does not work for you. I have read all the posts and am still searching for a score posted by you where you explain where exactly in your score the problem exists for you.
My post shows how it properly works for me. We are not interested in that. We are interested in why it does not work for you, in your score.
In reply to I did read all the posts… by Jm6stringer
If you read all the posts, how is it you did not quote the part about 'there is no score, because I corrected all the parts'? Since I will no longer will be using this function, as it causes me more problems than it solves, there will be no scores to come.
It is very frustrating on this end to always get ' send a score' and 'tell us what you did'. In this case I said exactly what I did. I, on the other hand was hoping someone else would actually try this on a score of somewhat similar size and see if it actually only does not work completely for me. Sending my score only confirms what I already know. Some measures it worked and others it did not. As I said in the first post there were no consistent features about measures that worked and others that did not.
I actually posted hoping someone might have a different way of merging 'like' rests.
Thanks for commenting
In reply to If you read all the posts,… by R. L. F.
"Sending my score only confirms what I already know." Not necessarily. We might have a different approach depending on what might be needed. We need to try on your score what you say you tried, and alternatives.
There is no other way to tell for sure that what someone else tried will work for you.
Also, someone might ask how you ended up with so many rests that needed to be delt with. Wouldn't avoiding them have helped to begin with?
In reply to "Sending my score only… by bobjp
bobjp
Now you are close to what I had hoped. Someone with a different approach. But none were offered. And offering a score stops the thinking there with how to fix something?
As to why ' so many rests needing to be delt with' falls into the composition and that's my work. So I would not even be interested in those thoughts!! Thanks again for your thoughts
In reply to bobjp Now you are close to… by R. L. F.
"As to why ' so many rests needing to be delt with' falls into the composition and that's my work. So I would not even be interested in those thoughts!!"
Ah, this gets more to the heart of the matter. Why you don't want to post a score. Much more than the score already being fixed.
And yet, in the end, you don't like all those rests and are trying to get rid of them after the fact. I understand that we all have our own way of working. Would you work the same way if you were hand writing this composition on paper? Probably not. Notation software can do many a marvelous thing. But it can't read your mind. It can't always save you from yourself.
In reply to "As to why ' so many rests… by bobjp
NO &YES!! We are talking about merging rests in a two instrument part/staff. With pencil I would Definitely not have two like rests in a measure or multiple rests if that were the case! So, I still fail to understand your worry as to why so many. They are there because that is the way the composition went. No less than desired and no more than needed!
As to why not want to waste my work time trying to prepare a score to send? What do you all think you are going to get. It is a one time feature per part/staff. There are no second chances. If I do something to try and then find out it did not work totally...where are we? So what do you really think you are going to gain? That is why if any of you would do the same with a large orch score you would accomplish much more and I would truly be interested in 'your' results. Short of that....
Thanks for the thoughts
In reply to If you read all the posts,… by R. L. F.
You wrote:
...there is no score, because I corrected all the parts
Ah...
But there is a score!!! There is your "corrected" score.
Throughout all the (many) discussions about the merge feature not working for you, you mentioned having to manually position rests so that they overlap each other to "look" merged. (Another idea was to toggle "invisible" for some rests.) All this was necessary because you claimed that merge rests did not work.
Again, arcane workarounds like this were used because you insisted that merge rests did not work. Got it.
Okay, so from your "corrected" score (showing rests that you either overlapped or made invisible) please select a few instances of such corrections and use menu item: File > Save selection and attach those instances to a post.
This way, we can easily reset the positions and/or visibility of any of your "corrections" to their defaults (before you "corrected" them). Then those examples will be as they were before you decided to fix them with your workarounds.
In reply to You wrote: ...there is no… by Jm6stringer
And then what? Honestly, if I go to all that trouble to provide such, what are you really going to do with it. And do you really believe from a 100+ page score where some rests were merged and others were not that I am going to remember instances that were not? You give me waaaaay to much credit!! Even shortly after I finished I doubt I would remember more than the last couple,if that, and this is days ago. Sorry, no chance.
But still, what would you expect to find. Does this feature work fine for a page or two or 15-20 measures? Is only 50-60+ pages where things go strange. I really do not see what you think you will do. Just confirm my result? I do not need that from my score. Yet, if you on the other hand used a 50 page score where you had not merged rests, then I would be interested in what you find.
And we do not seem to be mentioning that the 'merge' box was still checked after I did one part and had returned to do a different part. Why that? Something you do not need my score to check. Try this yourself a few times and see what your results might be. There are far to many variables to this for me to spend my work time any further. Thanks for the responses
In reply to And then what? Honestly, if… by R. L. F.
You wrote:
And then what? Honestly, if I go to all that trouble to provide such, what are you really going to do with it.
And do you really believe from a 100+ page score where some rests were merged and others were not that I am going to remember instances that were not?
Slow down and think...
There's no need to remember anything. Toggling merge matching rests off will undo the merges that worked, so that they will become unmerged.
Meanwhile, the merges that you were forced to manually adjust (with your workaround) will remain merged (unchanged by the toggle). Those are the important ones. The ones that were not merged by the matching rests feature.
Of course, if you are going to complain that even this is too much trouble (for another contrived reason) then please attach your entire score. But if you don't care, then I guess no one here should either.
In reply to You wrote: And then what?… by Jm6stringer
Sounds like a good idea, except....are you forgetting the reason for all this? The function Did Not work on all. So why are you so sure it will work as you expect now? And as I also have mentioned, sometimes when I went back to the merge box, for a different staff, it was still checked. And sometimes when I went to try and undo...it was not checked. Does it really just work the way you want, because that Is what you want to happen? Did not for me!
As I mentioned in a different post, I was trying to prepare a version to send. MU 4.1.1 locked up and I almost lost my original. Still not sure. Getting away from it all to settle down. So something might still show up. No guarantees.
In reply to And then what? Honestly, if… by R. L. F.
It is funny to request free time of the people trying to help you (to be clear: there is no MuseScore support here, only users like you and me !), and then when it appears that the only way to progress is to attach your score calling it "too much trouble for me".
In reply to It is funny to request free… by frfancha
Did you miss the part where I said the score was already corrected? And where no one has said anything about what they would actually do with a score where there is One chance to use the function and that chance has already been used?
I did finally try to make a copy to send. MU4.1.1 totally locked up and I very nearly lost my original copy. Yah, I appreciate any help for issues I do not understand, but as I mentioned over and over this needed someone else to try the function on a different score to see if the result would be the same.
In reply to Did you miss the part where… by R. L. F.
You wrote:
...as I mentioned over and over this needed someone else to try the function on a different score to see if the result would be the same.
Okay, here's a 100-page score. The flute part uses merged rests throughout. It works fine. No problem at all:
100 Page Opus.mscz
Here's the score without merged rests for you to try for yourself:
100 Page Opus- without merged rests.mscz
In reply to You wrote: ...as I mentioned… by Jm6stringer
Most interesting opus. Very repetitive. Makes me wonder whether you copied your 100 page score, then merged rests or merged rests then copied for 100 pages? I would remind you I had some of the rest merge for 3 or 4 meas., then 10 pages on they had not. One of the posts you bring up templates implying something? I never use templates or maybe I tried one 4 or 5 years ago, do not remember.
Anyway here is what I have to send. (if it works) It was still short a dozen pages, but you first just wanted one and it was taxing my system. So I guess this will be enough to prove you are right and it works fine!
There are 4 parts. 2 and 4 are the same. 4 is a copy of how 2 copied/pasted into this score. I did this just to show how things do not always function consistently. All the parts were merged 'like rests'. 1 and 3 copied exactly that way! 2 like rests were all unmerged?(as part 4 shows) Not important just another fun occurrence.
I went ahead and used the merge function on part 2 and as you can see it worked fine. So I expect you will find nothing. And this is pretty much the reason I had/have No interest in sending scores. It is doing nothing for me. I have said this every time I have done this! This IS the Last! If I have a question about how....I probably will. But not with problems. (such as the copying of parts)
So, if this works, have at it if you want.(it says it worked) test.mscz
In reply to Most interesting opus. Very… by R. L. F.
Thanks for the attachment. See below.
In reply to Sorry you did not have time… by R. L. F.
OK, so you already fixed the score. Here's the thing, everyone's system is different. The reason we needed a score is because there may have been something in the way you set up the score that causes a problem. So as it is, no one can help you. Unless you have an early, partial version you saved, or recreate a page or two of how the score may have looked. All of your questions could have been answered long, long ago, if we had a score. You and your computer are the only ones that can reproduce your particular problem. So please, help us help you.
In reply to OK, so you already fixed the… by bobjp
So as not to repeat exactly the same things over and over, please read my reply to jm6stringer.
"So as it is, no one can help you" is the most relevant of statements.
Two things though. How could I possibly set up a score that causes a problem with a function that works on one part/staff only at a time, yet did the same things for 3 different parts/staves? Yes, maybe this could have been answered earlier if one someone would have tried this on a score of similar size of Theirs!
Thanks for the thoughts, though
In reply to So as not to repeat exactly… by R. L. F.
"Two things though. How could I possibly set up a score that causes a problem with a function that works on one part/staff only at a time, yet did the same things for 3 different parts/staves?"
And yet, you had such a score. Did you create it from scratch or from a PDF. It can make a difference.
In reply to "Two things though. How… by bobjp
Scratch. As are all My scores.
In reply to Managing rests was exactly… by R. L. F.
As always, in order for us to understand and assist better, please always attach scores to your posts, and give precise steps to reproduce the problem. If you are unable to reproduce the problem now in a new score, great, then no need to reply further. If however the problem ever occurs again, please followup here and attach the score and steps to reproduce the problem at that time.
@R.L.F....I moved this conversation to a new sub-thread.
Earlier you wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said the score was already corrected? And where no one has said anything about what they would actually do with a score where there is One chance to use the function and that chance has already been used?
I did finally try to make a copy to send. MU4.1.1 totally locked up and I very nearly lost my original copy.
Regarding this statement;
Did you miss the part where I said the score was already corrected?
No, you also wrote: there is no score, because I corrected all the parts.
I replied: But there is a score!!! There is your "corrected" score.
So, you do have the corrected score to post.
Regarding this statement:
And where no one has said anything about what they would actually do with a score where there is One chance to use the function and that chance has already been used?
You are mistaken here. The 'Merge matching rests' checkbox is an on/off toggle. It is not a "one chance" and that's it, you're finished with no recourse to go back to how it was, as you seem to think when you wrote: It is a one time feature per part/staff. There are no second chances.
The fact is that you can uncheck the merge rests box.
I already explained the logic of what can be done here:
https://musescore.org/en/node/353870#comment-1205089
So, please post your corrected score.
Regarding this statement: I did finally try to make a copy to send. MU4.1.1 totally locked up and I very nearly lost my original copy.
No need to muck about, no need to prepare anything, simply attach your "corrected" score.
Again, simply attach your "corrected" score. Or is this the part that you keep missing?
In reply to I moved this conversation to… by Jm6stringer
Guess you missed that part where I said the 'merge matching rests' box was still checked when I went to use it again for a different part. And when I tried to merge what had not been done, what had been done the first time just unmerged, even though I was checking the box to merge. This went back and forth. Even when the box was checked, unchecking it also merged some rests. The function is obviously working differently for you. None of that was my experience. So, I am glad to hear that you got things to work. Sorry that the score you wished, I think, to show did not have any access.
And I know what You want, but again you seem to pass over what you actually think you will accomplish with the score? If I have anything after I finish 'mucking around' I will try to send it.
I have not asked, but I assume you are using Chromebook/Linux 4.1.1. And please do not tell me it makes no difference. I have had things, apparently, not work the same for me as for others.
In reply to Guess you missed that part… by R. L. F.
You wrote:
Guess you missed that part where I said the 'merge matching rests' box was still checked when I went to use it again for a different part.
I did not miss that part. I ignored it as another deflection on your part, a completely useless comment because you refuse to substantiate it by posting a score demonstrating such behavior. Without seeing the score, it's impossible to even guess at the possibility that you might have used a template with 'merge matching rests' already set for all staves.
You also wrote:
Also, after being shut down for 3 days, when I started everything new and fresh the 'merge' box was still checked!
If you checked it, then it remains checked. See? I read that part also. (Could be use of a template?)
Here's another one from a different thread:
The check box in the merge option does not always clear.
Again, once checked, it does not "automatically" clear.
And this from Aug 2 (in that other thread with 84 replies to mixed issues):
Should the merge check in the box disappear after each apply, OK? It does not for me and it is sending me around and around, besides the highlighted measure sometimes nearly refuses to let go. I know 'send a score'.
What? Send a score? Certainly, you should know by now. It's Aug. 26. Still waiting for your score.
On Aug. 18 you wrote:
Something is not working correctly. I just know that several pages further in the score rests were not merged when I did it the first time and sometimes the check box for the merge stays checked even after the window closes. Why...I do not know and nothing happens the same all the time. Not sending score because have no idea what or how these things happen.
Because you have "no idea" is precisely why you should send your score!
You wrote above:
And as I said it was a 100 page score, so one measure is not enough to test.
Okay...
So, I composed a 100-page Opus just for you. Open it and you can merge matching rests yourself.
You wrote:
Sorry that the score you wished, I think, to show did not have any access.
Access? Are you saying you could not open my brilliant 100-page score (2 examples) which I posted here:
https://musescore.org/en/node/353870#comment-1205260
Try this one in which you can merge rests for the flute:
100 Page Opus- without merged rests-2.mscz
In case you might now claim you need it for MuseScore 3:
100 Page Opus- without merged rests-MS3.mscz
In reply to You wrote: Guess you missed… by Jm6stringer
Your previous post with your 100 page opus Did Not have Any access option on this end. This post does. So when I have a chance I Will look.
So when I check it, 'it remains checked' . So then, as I said, go to a different part/staff to merge and the box is still merged! Is this truly correct. And what do you do, uncheck and expect what? And yet, this did not occur every time.
And somehow you still have a hard time saying anything about what you expect to do/check/investigate with the score you so Disperately need.
It will get there when it arrives. No sooner and no later.
In reply to Your previous post with your… by R. L. F.
You wrote:
And yet, this did not occur every time.
What did not occur every time? Flute rests became merged for all 100 pages, yes?
Because regarding merged rests, the issue you claimed to have with your score was that:
Some were merged and some not. So, for me the feature does not work.
Earlier you wrote:
Now from this side of the forum, it would be most useful if someone else would make the effort to reproduce the issue. I already know it does not work for me. It would be interesting to know if someone else's score functioned correctly or not. And as I said it was a 100 page score, so one measure is not enough to test.
Well, did my 100-page Opus work for you when you merged the flute staff?
You wrote:
And somehow you still have a hard time saying anything about what you expect to do/check/investigate with the score you so Disperately need.
Explanation for the score request can be found here:
https://musescore.org/en/node/353870#comment-1205089
--AND--
I don't desperately need it. This is your thread. As I wrote above (in case you missed it):
So, in case it's unclear, please post a score that you have issues with.
Posting examples that you say don't work, along with an explanation of what you expect to occur and what happens instead will allow someone here to figure out if, in fact, the feature does not work, as you claim - and, if it doesn't work - the reason why.
The forum works best when you post an actual score with the problem you encounter.
You wrote:
It will get there when it arrives. No sooner and no later.
Hallelujah!!
@R.L.F.... I am continuing here.
Thanks for your score which you attached in your post:
https://musescore.org/en/node/353870#comment-1205615
You wrote:
One of the posts you bring up templates implying something? I never use templates or maybe I tried one 4 or 5 years ago, do not remember.
Forget about me even mentioning the word "templates".
You wrote:
Anyway here is what I have to send. (if it works) It was still short a dozen pages, but you first just wanted one and it was taxing my system. So I guess this will be enough to prove you are right and it works fine!
There are 4 parts. 2 and 4 are the same. 4 is a copy of how 2 copied/pasted into this score. I did this just to show how things do not always function consistently. All the parts were merged 'like rests'. 1 and 3 copied exactly that way! 2 like rests were all unmerged?(as part 4 shows) Not important just another fun occurrence.
I went ahead and used the merge function on part 2 and as you can see it worked fine. So I expect you will find nothing. And this is pretty much the reason I had/have No interest in sending scores. It is doing nothing for me. I have said this every time I have done this! This IS the Last! If I have a question about how....I probably will. But not with problems. (such as the copying of parts)
...zzzz...
To cut to the quick...
I opened your attachment and saw 13 instruments per system with only 4 instruments actually playing any notes.
I got rid of the 9 non-playing instruments/staves, deleted the empty pages at the very end of the score, and entered the remaining 4 instruments' names in the Instruments panel. I did not change anything relating to merging matching rests.
Here's your (now easier to comprehend for the following discussion) score:
test_3.mscz
Remember: Merge matching rests is a staff property -- not a measure property.
Open that score and look at measure 19 of the Oboe staff. The quarter rest only "looks" merged. Same with the eighth rest further along in measure 26 (and others).
Yet, for the Oboe, staff/part properties has 'Merge matching rests' unchecked, so do this:
Right click on a rest in the Oboe staff, then Select > 'Similar on this staff'. Once all the rests in the Oboe staff are selected use menu item: Format > Reset shapes and positions. This puts the rests back to defaults (before they were dragged or cursor up/down to make them "look" merged).
Now, right click the staff and use 'Merge matching rests' properly. It applies to the Oboe staff.
The Bassoon staff has 'Merge matching rests' checked in staff properties and unchecking it unmerges them, so this staff looks okay.
The Horn in F has 'Merge matching rests' unchecked yet measures 20 and 21 along with other following measures "look" merged. (Just like the Oboe staff, the Properties panel confirms the offsets that were applied to the rests to make them "look" merged.)
Again, right click a rest > Select > Similar on this staff and then do menu item: Format > Reset shapes and positions. Then you can merge matching rests using staff properties.
The last staff, Violas, shows 'Merge matching rests' unchecked and they are, in fact, unmerged (look at measure 19). Put a check in the merge box in staff properties and it's all good.