End Barline spacing differs beween tuplets vs regular notes.
When the time signature is set to 1/4, it becomes apparent that the barline spacing after the last note of a tuplet is often less than that of a regular note. I have tried numerous settings to make them even, but of no avail. Attached is an example, I have changed the first note spacing following barlines to zero for easier identification. Notice how the measures that end with a tuplet differ in length than the other ones. I can remedy this by adjusting the stretch of tuplet-ending measures, but it would be great to have a permanent fix.
PS: If you are thinking, why would anyone choose a 1/4 time signature? My other bandmates can not read standard notation that well, so it helps with marking where each beat is.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Alberti_DBZ_Xote-barlines-bug.pdf | 48.91 KB |
Comments
I see nothing unusual in this. In every measure you have a note on the third triplet, which is positioned in the correct location compared to the final 8th notes in the other staves. These triplet notes logically belong there. You didn't upload the actual file, so we can't examine it and test it, but if you were to delete the triplet from the final beat in all of the measures, you would see the final beat is relatively close to the same distance from the next bar line.
In reply to I see nothing unusual in… by mike320
Yes, you are correct that the last note of triplet will be closer to a barline than an 1/8 note. However, if you measure the distance between two barlines, you'll see that the last tuplet note spacing is often too close (or perhaps the whole triplet is too "bunched"). As a result, the measure is slightly shorter in length.. If in fact Musescore uses proportional notation with multiple-staff systems in order to align measures, every measure should be the same length between barlines regardless of note type, understanding that the note adjacent to each barline may differ in spacing depending upon the time value to the next beat. I have attached the original Musescore file.
In reply to Yes, you are correct that… by Sambaji
You don't seem to understand what MuseScore is doing.
If you fill all the instruments on a system with whole notes in one measure and then fill the next measure with nothing but 16th notes, you will see that the measure with 16th notes is much wider that the measure with only whole note. When you put a triplet on the upbeat in the 1/4 measure, MuseScore will extend the space for the final 8th note to allow for the 3 16th notes. When it does this, it must find space for these notes rather than crowding them in there. To make this space, it proportionately shrinks all previous measures on the line. In testing, I turned the last 1/4 note on the first line in the Agogo v3 into a triplet (I selected it and pressed ctrl-3). When I did this, the measure was stretched a little to allow room for the extra 16th note that is not anywhere else in that measure. If you return the first 16th to an 8th, the measure and entire system returns to where it was before. Other testing I did was to delete all of the notes on the triangle, that has sextuplets and saw that all of the measures were adjusted because the first half of the sextuplet on the down beat no longer existed in several measures.
When I returned the space before the first note to the default of 1.2 sp it looked better. I also kept the Triangle line full of rests since it made the distances between beats exactly the same. I then measured the distance in measure 5 from the first 8th note to the second and form the second 8th note to the end of the line. I discovered the distance from the first to the second is shorter than the distance from the second to the end, as it should be because of the tuplets in the Zabumbas. When I remove all tuplets from a measure, the distance from the first 8th to the second is the same as the distance from the second 8th to the bar line.
This seems to be what you expect.
In reply to You are not understanding… by mike320
Your right Mike, I am misunderstanding how Musescore layouts notation. Thanks for checking. I was confused by the replies that I got from my recent feature request "Add proportional notation option as in LilyPond." (https://musescore.org/en/node/256621). They seem to imply that Musescore already does fixed proportional notation by default with multiple staff systems. However, by your example, my assumption is incorrect. Perhaps there is also a lack clarity in how I am using the term "proportional", which refers to when the spacing between each note exactly matches their time value. In some ways, I am seeking to create a hybrid of standard notation and the TUBS system. To borrow from Wikipedia, "Time Unit Box System (TUBS) is a simple system for notating events that happen over a period. This system is mostly used for notating rhythms in music. The notation consists of one or more rows of boxes; each box represents a fixed unit of time. Blank boxes indicate that nothing happens during that interval, while a mark in a box indicates that an event occurs at the start of that time interval." Picture standard notation on grid paper. For a hand written example, please see: http://hiphoptranscriptions.tumblr.com/
In reply to Your right Mike, I am… by Sambaji
Then you misread my answer (or I misread your question).
I also clearly mention that if you want each measure to be of similar size, you'll have to use a hidden voice in which you enter a series of the smallest note value to affect that spacing. It still isn't foolproof, because of accidentals for example, but also be aware that making each measure exactly the same size is considered rather unwanted practice. It makes it way harder for your eyes to keep track of where you are on a page when reading it.
In reply to Your right Mike, I am… by Sambaji
To be clearly: spacing in MuseScore is indeed "proportional" in the very literal dictionary sense - longer notes take more space than shorter one. However it is not directly proportional - a half note doesn't take twice the space of a quarter. It's more like a logarthmic scale or some such, where a half note takes "somewhat" more space than a quarter but not twice as much. Basically trying to emulate standard / traditional engraving practice.
There is currently no option for a direct proportional spacing, but the method of placing an extra staff full of 32nd notes (or whatever) would generally give the desired effect. There are lots of other considerations that affect spacing, though, like lyrics, chord symbols, grace notes, glissandi, arpeggios, etc. So even with an option to default to direct proportional spacing (which I think would be pretty easy to implement), I'm not sure you'd really get that exactly unless we got deeper and turned off all those other adjustments, maybe giving you the responsibility for avoiding collisions yourself by being sure to put few enough measures per line. Something to consider.
In reply to Yes, you are correct that… by Sambaji
This is not the default setting.
Why "Barline to Note distance" is zero (0.0) ? (default is 1.20)
(Style -> General -> Measure)
In reply to This is not the default… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Please see initial post. Eventually, I want to overlay a graph-like vertical grid on my score to clearly demark beat (sub)divisions. That's why I am seeking a way of displaying the notation truly proportionally, which is an option in Lilypond.
In reply to Please see initial post. by Sambaji
Just add an extra stave and fill with invisible notes.
In reply to Just add an extra stave and… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Great. Thanks for attaching example. As a side note, why are the notes in the invisible measures not evenly spaced? This is apparent in all the three examples you included. For example, the first note of the invisible 4-sixenth groupings, in the "16 level" example, is further away than the others, and the last note in each invisible sextuplet is further from the others in the "Triplet Level"? While I know that "proportional" notation is generally harder to read and is not considered general practice, it is good for instructional purposes to easily see how rhythms line up and how standard notation works (what does each note value actually mean in time, time being represented by the horizontal axis of the score).
In reply to Great. Thanks for attaching… by Sambaji
The reason for the uneven spacing is due to non matching tuplet 16th notes and straight 16th notes. All of the invisible 16th that are farther away have tuplet 16ths above them, and as you are trying to teach, do not fall on the same spot.
In reply to The reason for the uneven… by mike320
Sorry, I am not quite understanding your point. I understand that Musescore adjusts measure length and over-all note spacing based on other voices or staff. However, I am confused why spacing of some of the notes in a beamed group, which all have the same value (e.g., 16th notes) differs depending upon another staff. Shouldn't the distribution of space within a note group of the same value be even (e.g. 16th notes) regardless of the note values in another aligned measure? Lilypond, when "Proportional Notation" is specified does not do this. Also, in regards to teaching, the lack of consistent spacing in a note group of the same value dose not convey visually that a straight 1/16 note pulse is a straight 1/16 note pulse. Instead it visually suggests that the pulse varies dependent upon whether a triplet, for example, is being played at the same time, which of course is not rhythmically accurate.
In reply to Sorry, I am not quite… by Sambaji
No, it is normal / standard / correct for notes in one staff to affect those in another. It's important for beats to align, and this very often means all sorts of irregularities in spacing for individual staves because of the contents of other staves. It's always this way in published music.
In reply to No, it is normal / standard … by Marc Sabatella
I should add there is an option the Inspector to disable this with respect to beamed groups in particular: Local relayout.
In reply to I should add there is an… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks. I'll have a look.
In the meantime, I have attached two pdfs (a picture is worth a thousand words): the first is the original one Ziya posted;the other has been converted as a musicxml to Lilypond. Ignoring the over size difference of both documents, notice how the last staff in each system of the Lilypond's notation has evenly spaced notes, regardless of what the other staffs are doing. The beats still line up. This is Lilypond's default output (without specifying fixed-proportional notation). Can you see the difference?
In reply to Thanks I'll have to look… by Sambaji
Your tip on selecting "Local Relayout" seems to have done the trick, making the layout closer to Lilypond's default. Perhaps, that should be an option added to preferences to be able set it for the whole score without having to select all the beams first. For those who are wondering what "Local Relayout" is here is a description: "Notes and Rests at the same time position are vertically aligned by default. Sometimes this is not desired. A new feature allows to relayout beamed notes and rests without considering notes/rests in other staves."
In reply to Your tip on selecting "Local… by Sambaji
So reporting back after doing further experimentation, "Local Relayout" does what it says it does in that it ignores the notes/rest in other staves. The end result isn't like Lilypond's fix-proportional option after all (see example above), which is what I am aiming for. It seems like the best approach, which has been suggested a couple of times in this "bug" post and my other related feature request, is to create either an invisible new staff or voice filled with tatum notes, in my case, 16th note sextuplets. "Tatum refers to a subdivision of a beat which represents the "time division that most highly coincides with note onsets"
In reply to Sorry, I am not quite… by Sambaji
Let's use a larger example like a quarter note. If you write 2 straight 1/4 notes and 2 quarter notes in a 1/2 note triplet in two different staves on beat one, both of the first 1/4 notes will be played at the same time. The second in each group will be played at different times. The one in the triplet will play first then the straight 1/4 note will play. Finally, while the second straight 1/4 note is playing the the third triplet note will play. I have used two different instruments and slowed the tempo down to illustrate this.
tuplets v straight.mscz
Notice that after the first ones, the 1/4 notes do not line up, because they do not start at the same time. The same thing happens with shorter notes. This is what you were seeing in Mire's invisible staves. To help clarify, these quarter notes do note play the same amount of time. The ones in the triplet are shorter in duration. Therefore, they cannot line up. This horizontal time spacing is what you said you are attempting to teach and the visual reinforces this concept.
The fact that Mire's notes had beams had no effect on the irregular spacing of the notes, the different rhythms caused this to happen.
In reply to Please see initial post. by Sambaji
You can force the type of layout you are referring to. Create a line of music in voice 2 (and others if necessary) with the divisions you need for the music you are looking at. In your sample score I would use sextuplets. If you have music with something like straight 16th notes (not in your sample) and tuplets as your example, you may need to put the tuplets in voice 2 and straight 16th notes in voice 3. These rhythms need to only be rests. You can see how I did this in a minute in the attached file. To see the invisible rests, check show invisible in the view menu. They're on the Agogo v3.
To make this I
inserted another triangle,
selected all of the measures,
pressed ctrl-6.
Swapped voices 1 and 2.
Used the selection filter (F6) and unchecked voice 1.
Copied my triangle rests and pasted them in the Agogo
removed the triangle from the instruments list.
I did this to prevent an extra instrument from being in the score.
This will make all measures the same width as long as each line has the same number of measures as in your example. You will notice that the measures in system 1 are wider than in system 2 in your example because of the time signature. Your grid requires each measure to be the same width, so you can always add an empty measures if needed or add the time signature to each system as I did. If you don't want to see it, make it invisible.
In reply to You can force the type of… by mike320
Nicely done. Thanks! I guess this not a commonly requested Musescore feature--proportional notation. It would great to have just one option to select instead of having to create another voice of invisible notes/rests. But the solution given on this page will do for now. It's interestingly though why Lilypond;s developers decided to add that option. One of their explanations is that "some late 20th- and early 21st-century scores use proportional notation to clarify complex rhythmic relationships or to facilitate the placement of timelines or other graphics directly in the score."