Augm. dot with double voices in seconds - SPACE
Please see this topic at Notatio:
http://notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=147&start=10#p2515
It should be good that the quarter-notes are equally spaced. Can this be fixed?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
I'm not sure there exists a specific rule about this. At least, I couldn't find anything in Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars", and I see different solutions to this in different editions (and from different programs). I *do* tend to agree that more space afte rthe quarter would be good, although I'm not sure I'd want it literally equal - if there were eighth notes in another staff, for instance, they'd look unnecessary *unequal*:
The current spacing actuall;y works better for that case:
But I admit that is probably not the right tradeoff. Would still lvoe to see some "official" recommendations on this (preferably one that considers the effect on other staves/voices).
In reply to I'm not sure there exists a by Marc Sabatella
Agree about 8-notes. But that is not the same example!
The rule is following: the smallest values should be equally spaced; otherwise—if not—they imply added spacing (accidental, smaller values...). If there is no accidental, and no smaller values, these values should be equally spaced. There is no absolutely no reason not to have them equally spaced.
In reply to Agree about 8-notes. But that by edizioneo
This is actually quite complex and it is easy to come up with all sorts of problems, examples and counter-examples. If you have dactylic rhythms in one voice (8- 16 - 16 / 8 - 16 - 16 etc.) and even eighths in the other and you want those spaced evenly you need to waste an awful lot of space (generally a eighth will use less than double the space of a sixteenth). And quite frankly I will accept somewhat uneven spacing in exchange for fewer page turns every time.
I believe you'll have to find the best compromise in each situation, probably manually quite often.
In reply to This is actually quite by azumbrunn
I can't agree. If you have the same rhythm 8-16-16 and again 8-16-16, will your 16s have the same spacing if the pitches and situation is tha same?
So please, REFER ONLY TO THE GIVEN EXAMPLE. In the example provided it is uneven spaced, I don't understand why philosophing.
In reply to I can't agree. If you have by edizioneo
A rule that is good for just one example is not much good I think.
But ok. In your example you have the choice between two uneven spacings: Either the four quarters are evenly spaced and the dotted half is too far to the left (example above in Marc's post) or else the first quarter is to the right of the "correct" position while the dotted half is right on point. And I would argue that the quarter is only not on the correct location because it can't overlap the dotted half. Anyhow neither option looks perfect to my eyes.
Given that the effect on other staves (if any) is less disruptive with the second solution (the one MS uses) I'd somewhat prefer it. Which brings us back to my point: You must select the most appropriate (compromise) solution depending on many factors.
In reply to A rule that is good for just by azumbrunn
Quote:"Either the four quarters are evenly spaced and the dotted half is too far to the left"
The four quarter notes can be equally spaced without forcing the dotted half to far on the left.
If it is "to far to the left" than it means that the distance to the left barline has been compressed, and that is not what I am asking for.
You can place the quarters equal without touching bar width and spacing from the first note to the left barline.
In reply to Agree about 8-notes. But that by edizioneo
You say this is "the rule", but I can't find any source for this, and as mentioned, it is easy to find cases in published music where it seems a different rule is being followed, presumably because the rule you propose would actually not look as good or be as space-efficient. Can you point me to an good authoritative and comprehensive discussion of this in the literature? If there really is a clearly stated rule from a knowledgeable source that we can implement, and evidence that this rule really is being followed consistently in published music, we can certainly look at implementing it. But we need more to go on that one person's opinion of how one particular example might look better - we need a clearly stated rule from a respected authroity that has been demonstrated to work well for *all* cases.
In reply to You say this is "the rule", by Marc Sabatella
Here is another way to look at this: In cases of overlap: Which note moves out of the way in which direction? MS moves the lower (or smaller?) note to the right. The suggestion here seems to be to move the upper (or larger?) note to the left.
In this way of looking at it the other voices probably ought to align with the note that does not move thereby preserving the even spacing for all but the moving note in any of the four possibilities.
In reply to Here is another way to look by azumbrunn
Here, there *is* a clearly stated rule in Gould, on p. 53: "Offset the lower part to the right. Vertically align the upper part with a part on another stave", and she shows a picture clarifying that it is definitely the upstem half note that should be aligned with notes in other staves, and the downstem quarter that should be offset, which is exactly what we do. That is, the upper note is in the "correct" position, the lower note is the one offset. That is why we end up crowding the *following* note; if we had offset the upper note, we might have ended up crowding the *preceding* note.
So really, you can't have it both ways. If we follow the recommendation to keep the upper part aligned correctly with notes in other staves and offset the lower notes, then there will either be unequal spacing in the staff with the second or in the other staff - you can't have yur cake and eat it too. That is, it will have to be one of these two, neither of which are equal everywhere, because that's physically impossible:
By default, we do what you see on the left - equal spacing for the staff that *doesn't* have the adjacent note issue. If on the other hand we changed the spacing to make that staff equal, it forces the *other* staff to be unequal. When I look at published music, I see both choices being used, suggesting there really is no universal rule here.
BTW, I also see examples where the Gould's rule is *not* followed: the *lower* part is aligned with the notes in other staves, thus solving the problem of space *after* this note, but creating the another issue with spacing *before* it. Again, it's physically impossible to get equal spacing in all cases, and it seems not much consistency in how different engravers have chosen to do this.
The bottom line for me is - there is no way to get equal spacing everywhere, and it seems every engraver handles these case differently. Our current default is the most space-efficient, but if you prefer a less space-efficient format, you can achieve it easily enough by manual adjustment. So I'm not yet seeing any strong reason to make a change here.
In reply to Here, there *is* a clearly by Marc Sabatella
Dear Marc,
Thank you for posting, but your answers with added voices (last post), added rhythms (first post) IS NOT EQUAL with my question. This doesn't proof or solve the issue. I am asking to read it carefully. Only THIS is the issue:
![shot 4.jpg]( "shot 4.jpg")
Please, don’t add any other rhythm, voices etc. This is not the way we discuss here, you just make it messy.
I will clarify what I mean in the following steps. I am away from my studio and my books, but if you really need to spend time to find exactly pages in the litterature, let me know.
RULES:
![shot 2.jpg]( "shot 2.jpg")
![shot 3.jpg]( "shot 3.jpg")
1. Spacing of shorter values is on the higher hieararchy than spacing of longer values. Therefore one measure with two half notes is shorter than a measure of 8 eight notes; because the half notes (longer values) are subordinated to eighth notes (shorter values).
2. Spacing of notes of the same value is equal. (here is exception if one note has an accidental, lyrics, or sometimes ledger lines). It means that a row of 8 eighth notes must be equal, always.
I think you agree with this statements above.
The most important point is here:
a. The spacing rule says that spacing of the same values must be equal.
b. You cannot find any rule with a dotted note and seconds, or just with seconds.
c. You break the rule a. (same values = same spacing).
d. You cannot find any additional rule that could add exception to a.
I would encourage you to find in the literature example of what you say. I will post examples from the litterature to proof my thesis.
(Another post is about "flat slurs" which, despite my extensively explanation with examples, had never been accepted).
In reply to Dear Marc, Thank you for by edizioneo
As mentioned, a rule that only addresses one particular measure isn't a useful rule at all. Any rule worth folliowing *must* work even with others voices or staves present, and that's the problem my post explained. So unless you can find a definitive statement by a respected authority that gives a clearly-defined rule and explains how it applies with multiple staves, I still don't see that there is anything we can do here that won't just improve this case at the expense of others. So if you want more equal spacing on this staff (at the expensve of spacing in other staves), you can do so manually - it's a simple adjustment in the Inspector (eg, the leading space for the next note).
As I mentioned, I *did* find quite a few examples, and they all conflicted - demonstrating they followed different rules. Your posted exmaple don't show the effect of this on other staves, which again is the problem.
In reply to As mentioned, a rule that by Marc Sabatella
Marc,
I really respect your work on MS.
But this attitude is not what can be helpful to solve this issue, because there is not curiosity to examine tje question, but just 'protecting' MuseScore's output as the correct one.
I have found numerous other examples that confirm my thesis (except those below).
You say, you have found different examples in the litterature. Please, attach these pictures so that we can inspect it openly.
My comments from your statements above:
- one rule is not necessarily applicable to ALL POSSIBLE situations. Otherwise we would have very little rules.
- my example is as-it-is and therefore no other situations can be diacussed to solve the problem.
- if I say that spacing rule was not respected, you have to proof in this example that this is not true.
And I am not only one that thinks that this (check Bach output in MS) looks very bad.
In reply to Marc, I really respect your by edizioneo
I *am* curious, which is why I have spent time investigating and responding. Like I said to begin with, I think there are probably better choices to be made, but I'm still wanting to see some sort of official rule that could be followed that would not make some cases better but others worse. I have tried hard to find such a rule but so far failed.
I'm not at my office right now where I have access to all the scores I consulted, so I cannot post pictures of what I have found. But please believe me when I say I foudn examples of all three approaches:
1) upper note aligned with other staves (as per Gould), bottom note offset to right, extra space allocated to make that voice more consistent resulting in *less* consistent spacing on all other staves (the solution you seem to prefer)
2) upper note aligned with other staves (as per Gould), bottom note offset to right, no extra space allocated making the spacing in that voice less consistent but resulting in *more* consistent spacing on all other staves (what MuseScore does)
3) *buttom* note aligned with other staves (violating Gould's rule), top note offset to *left*, no extra space allocated after this making spacing to the *right* consistent in all staves but *inconsistent in all staves to the left.
Based on what I saw, all three were more or less equally common. Some editions used one approach in one situation, another elsewhere, indicating the editor was using subjective judgement to see what would work best rather than applying any one single rule.
I will provide examples later in the week, but I absolutely assure you they exist.
I'm not *unwilling* to try implementing an approach more like 1), but again, I'd really need to see a clearly-expressed rule to follow.
In reply to I *am* curious, which is why by Marc Sabatella
Actually, it turns out to be very easy to find examples of all three approaches within a single published work I have here at home - the Czerny / Schirmer edition of Bach's WTC 1 (which I would guess is one of the most widely-known editions of one of the most widely-known works of music in history). In fact, you can find examples of not just those three rules being applied, but also examples of places where it seems the engraver just tried some completely different approach to fit the situation at hand. Approach 3 seems what they do mostly - deliberately violating the alginment rule in order to create more consistent spacing to the right at the expense of inconsistent spacing to the right - but even so, they clearly adjust according to the situation.
Fugue 1 (C Major), measure 5: here is combination of approaches 2 and 3. The sixteenths in beat 3 are clearly spaced more closely than the rest, so that much is like approach 2, but the lower note is the one that is (mostly, but not completely) aligned with the other staff, which is the essence of approach 3. I think the engraver chose this approach here because since there were only two sixteenths so the spacing irregularity to the right would not be so noticeable, and by cheating the alignment (it's somewhere *between* the two notes), the spacing issue to the left would not be so objectionable either (although it's still quite noticeable).
Fugue 4 (C# minor), measure 14: here approach 3 is used very clearly. The quarters are spaced evenly, but this is achieved by deliberately breaking the rule about aligning the upper note with the other staff. I think the engraver chose this approach here because it was the first note of the measure so no spacing problems were created. This is the approach chosen most often in this particular edition. However, in measure 27. we see approach 2 being used. Slightly different in that here both parts are upstem, but still, the bottom line is, no additional space was allocated, so the quarters are closer between been 3-4 than elsewhere, just as in our algorithm.
Fugue 14 (F# minor), measures 12-14: measure 13 uses the "wrong" arrangement of the two notes, causing the augmentation dot on the upper note to look like a staccato on the lower. But this allows approach 3 to be applied (aligning the lower note also in violation of Gould). Measures 12 & 14 use Gould's secondary (less ideal but still acceptable) arrangement where the upper dotted part goes to the right, which then necessarily creates very irregular spacing - too *wide* to the right.
Fugue 16 (G minor), measures 25-27: approach 2 (ours) is followed pretty clearly hear. In measure 25 the irregular spacing is less noticeable because of the accidentals on the third and fourth sixteenths of the group, but it's right there in plain view in measures 26 and 27.
Fugue 17 (Ab major), measure: here is the clearest example I found of approach 1. Alignment is as per Gould, but space is add to get consistent spacing in that staff at the cost of inconsistent spacing in the other staff. There is another example of this in the third to last measure of prelude 19, but overall, this approach was not used very often.
Fugue 22 (Bb minor), measure 39. Here is another example of approach 1, but it's kind of special because the figure shows up in *both* staves at different times, thus to some extent hiding the bad effect this has on the spacing of the other staff. That is, the figure n beat one in the bottom staff causes bad spacing in the top staff, but the figure in the top staff on beat 2 returns the favor by creating bad spacing in the bottom staff.
This is just one edition of one work, and I see what appears to be quite a few different policies being followed, varying according to the situation, trying to balance the desire to have consistent spacing with the need to save space and choosing different compromises at different times. Which is why I still have the concern that any one rule we tried to follow consistently would probably make some situations between but others worse.
In reply to Actually, it turns out to be by Marc Sabatella
I will make the research later in my studio but here just a short comment.
When you say "three rules" than you accept the rule of even spacing?
Also, while DWK is a good piece, your statement that Schirmer edition with Czerny is the "authorative" - i simply don't agree. Schirmer has never been the authority in music engraving; and frankly speaking, no high level professional uses Czerny edition anymore. It is to old and non-critical.
To make more "balanced" investigation we need to compare numerous examples from different editors.
So that's why I have posted the same example from different editions. You haven't commented this, and I don't know why it is not sufficient.
In reply to I will make the research by edizioneo
As I keep observing, it is *physically impossibvle* to have even spacing in cases like this. Either the staff containing the offset notes will have unequal spacing, or all of the other staves will. And the unequal spacing will either be to the left or to the right. But one way or another, there absolutely has to be unequal spacing *somewhere*. These three approaches just change *where* the unequal spacing occurs.
BTW, I never said the Czerny / Schirmer edition was particularly "authoritative" - just that it was widely known. But the specific edition I happened to use as my example is irrelevant. As I said, look through other scores and you'll find the exact same thing - different approaches used in different places.
Your examples show only a single staff, so it is impossible to judge how other staves are affected. I think what you'll find is that some case use approach 1, others choose approach 3 - two different methods of favoring equal spacing in the staff containing the offset at the expense of unequal spacing in all others staves and more space required overall. Others will choose to accept unequal spacing in the score containing the offset in order to get more consistent spacing elsewere and to save space overall.
In reply to Actually, it turns out to be by Marc Sabatella
I want to clarify one thing:
The spacing between second voice notes MUST BE EQUAL in the case they only determinate spacing, and this is my first post. How it is solved it is different, but not the way MuseScore does (non equal spacing), see below.
…
…
-=Fugue 1 (C Major), measure 5=-
In Schirmer (your example) it is clearly tha way I propose, the distance is the same between three notes in the voice 2:
![Fugue 1 (C Major), measure 5 SCHIRMER.png]( "Fugue 1 (C Major), measure 5 SCHIRMER.png")
![Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.06.37.png]( "Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.06.37.png")
![Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.07.39.png]( "Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.07.39.png")
![Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.08.40.png]( "Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.08.40.png")
![Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.10.05.png]( "Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.10.05.png")
![Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.10.42.png]( "Skärmavbild 2016-04-25 kl. 14.10.42.png")
Other examples:
…
…
Finally, MuseScore with the definite wrong spacing:
…
…
This is just this measure. We can continue furhter, but I hope I was clear enough. I can find my Bärenraiter and Henle editions for furhter analysis.
…
…
I hope that you, or whoever is MS's developer, will understand the importance of this issue.
In reply to I want to clarify one by edizioneo
You are looking at only one beat. But compare the spacing of the sixteenths in this beat to the spacing in *other* beats and you'll see it is not so simple - they have compressed this beat artificially compared to the other beats. And again, the Schirmer edition only manages to achieve this result by breaking another rule that is normally unquestioned - they align the *lower* note with the other staff rather than the *upper* note as they are supposed to. Even though this is "cheating", it might still be a good solution to the problem in certain cases, but again, I'd love to see an authoritative source state the rule clearly: what are the *exact* conditions in which breaking the alignment rule is acceptable, when it might be more appropriate to preserve alignment but to add extra space, and when it is best to simply optimize for space. Again, these are thre three approaches in actual use by actual engravers, if there is a rule they are following to guide them in determining when to use each of these three different approaches, I want to know what it is.
In reply to You are looking at only one by Marc Sabatella
OK, my picture attachments have been deleted. Why?
In reply to OK, my picture attachments by edizioneo
I see everything in this entire thread. Which comment(s) do you think they were deleted from?
In reply to I see everything in this by schepers
In Safari I don't see embedded pictures which I posted:
https://musescore.org/en/node/107746#comment-486871
In reply to In Safari I don't see by edizioneo
No issue from this end, IE 11 Windows 10.
In reply to You are looking at only one by Marc Sabatella
They work for me too. Maybe clear your browser cache?
FWIW, I'm looking at the code controlling this, and think I see where we'd need to hook into to make a change to the spacing in the current master (which will eventually become MuseScore 3) given the new layout system. Actually, with the new system, I'm kind of surprised it doesn't end up doing approach #1 by default, but somewhere between the calculations of the minRight for the chord, the width for the segment, and the minHorizontalDistance between this segment and the next, the offsert note is only accounted for enough to avoid collisions, not to actually affect spacing. In the old system, I'm pretty sure this was deliberate, but with the new system, I actually might have expected this to work differently.
In reply to They work for me too. Maybe by Marc Sabatella
Try holding down [Shift] while reloading the page.
In reply to Here, there *is* a clearly by Marc Sabatella
As a violinist, I have found this example very quick. (including dotted second!)
Bach, Chaconne for Violin (and arrangements):
![peters 1880.jpg]( "peters 1880.jpg")
![peters.jpg]( "peters.jpg")
![kistner.jpg]( "kistner.jpg")
![Leipzig Otto Forberg.jpg]( "Leipzig Otto Forberg.jpg")
![Breitkopf und Härtel.jpg]( "Breitkopf und Härtel.jpg")
![MS.jpg]( "MS.jpg")
Peters:
Kistner (1880)
Leipzig Otto Forberg
Breitkopf und Härtel
MuseScore:
(Pay attention on, IMO, wrong spacing in:
- measure 1 (between d-c# in voice 2: notehead d is placed CLOSER to tone c#!!) and
- in both voices on beat II in measure 2 (notehead B in voice 2 is placed in the middle of C and A!!)
In my opinion, this spacing issue is extremely crucial, and I hope you will understand why.
In reply to As a violinist, I have found by edizioneo
BTW, regarding the placement of the notehead relative to the dot, Gould does address this case, and recommends the approach we use. She specifically says *not* to do what Peters and most of the others do ("a dot should not be separated its notehead by the adjacent note"), and while she says the placement used by Leipzig Otto Forberg is acceptable, she definitely expresses preference for the way we do it, as in the example you gave, the dot is easily mistaken for a staccato. She says this the way we do it is the msot desirable, "even though this may force a gap between the pars".
This is on p. 56, FWIW.
In reply to BTW, regarding the placement by Marc Sabatella
While I completely agree with the statement about the dot, I point here the right side spacing; to say, the spacing that come after the adjustment. That is what I point as inadequate.
In reply to While I completely agree with by edizioneo
The Chaconne is of course such a unique piece that it is probably a bad choice to extract general rules from. Indeed it might be one where all sorts of rules better be broken.
Personally I'd go with Musescore (I own Bärenreiter) and then even out the "compressed" group of four quavers by moving the middle ones a little bit backward (manually). This way it will look almost "even" and still there is no doubt about the dot and its function (which none of the other solutions gets very well).
In reply to The Chaconne is of course by azumbrunn
QUOTE1:The Chaconne is of course such a unique piece that it is probably a bad choice to extract general rules from. Indeed it might be one where all sorts of rules better be broken."
How is Chaconne more unique piece than other pieces? How it is a bad choice to extract rules and what rules are broken?
Please, don't write plain statements without any deeper clarification. You have to show the facts.
And I think that Chaconne is a simple example, here in DIFFERENT editions, what just confirm my thesis.
QUOTE2:And quite frankly I will accept somewhat uneven spacing in exchange for fewer page turns every time."
First, I have never said that the right space must be compromised by moving all succeeding notes to the right. I just say that they must be evenly spaced.
Secondly, page turns have nothing to do with proper spacing. An engraver which would sacrifice the correct spacing for page turns should not call him a professional.
In reply to QUOTE1:The Chaconne is of by edizioneo
An interesting discussion, surely.
I have absolutely to qualifications in this area, other than being a regular "consumer" of sheet music, as a member of multiple choirs; but I would like to offer the following "rule" for feedback.
proposal) "When a group of three or more notes in a single measure, of the same duration and without accidentals or other embellishments, is connected by a beam, the 'interior' notes should be individually offset to produce equal spacing within the group."
While this may cause some small vertical misalignment of notes between staves (is this what is meant by "pars?" I tried to google that term, but all I got was the game of golf.) it would make the group of notes more readable (to this singer, anyway.)
I would be able to work on this issue (hopefully, a small enough change for this newbie to work on ;)
In reply to An interesting discussion, by Jon Enquist
Exactly so.
If we read my statement from above I would repeat it once again:
A.The longer values are subordinated to the shorter values.
B.The note row of same values should be spaced equally if they don't include embellishments or accidentals.
In reply to An interesting discussion, by Jon Enquist
It should indeed not be too terribly difficult to implement a rule along the lines of what is being proposed: making the staff containing the offset ntoes more consistent at the price of taking more space overall and making the spacing on all other staves inconsistent. One complication though is that the whole spacing algorithm just underwent a *huge* change in the current master a coupe of weeks ago, and I'm not sure exactly how it would be implemented any more. I can only assume it would not be too difficult, but I'm less sure how to begin.
But note the way you have phrased the proposal isn't quite accurate. It's *already* the case that beamed notes are spaced equally in "normal" circumstances. It's only the special case of a note that is offset due to a second or other potentially other collision (the cases of unision and overlap also need to be considered) that we would need to address. Presumably, by taking the amount of offset applied into consideration when calculating the amount of "space" required to the right of the chord or segment. Except that there is no more "space", it's done by "shape", and I haven't yet investigated how this works in practice.
Also, the issue has nothing to do with beaming - the same principle can apply to unbeamed notes.
In reply to It should indeed not be too by Marc Sabatella
Sorry for taking this back. I hope this issue will be addressed in the future version. If you would need, I can be of help for the future testing.
QUOTE: "But note the way you have phrased the proposal isn't quite accurate. It's *already* the case that beamed notes are spaced equally in "normal" circumstances. It's only the special case of a note that is offset due to a second or other potentially other collision (the cases of unision and overlap also need to be considered) that we would need to address."
I have tried to be as clear as possible. The rule I proposed consists of two postulates (above, I repeat):
1. Spacing of shorter values is on the higher hieararchy than spacing of longer values.
2. Spacing of notes of the same value is equal.
In the cases shown above, there is no hindrance for rule No 2 to be applied, since the rule No 1 must be followed.
I have been in touch with E Gould concerning this example, and she will be back after the research.
In reply to Sorry for taking this back. I by edizioneo
Understood. Again, you must rewalize what you propose is *physically impossible* as stated. It's only possible for one staff at a time. If the spacing for one staff is changed to obey those rules, the spacing for all other staves in the score will necessary be made inconsistent as a result. Not saying this means it isn't a reaosnable sacrifice, but you must be aware this would necessarily be the case - it is physically impossible to have equal spacing in all staves at once (not if you want the note to align!)
In reply to Understood. Again, you must by Marc Sabatella
Quote: "it is physically impossible to have equal spacing in all staves at once (not if you want the note to align!)"
I have never suggested this, nor this was my initial question.
In reply to Quote: "it is physically by edizioneo
Right, but you keep sayign the rule is that spacing must be equal. If you want to invent a rule to us to follow, it will need to precise - it needs to describe *which* staff needs to have consistent spacing and which staves should thus be forced to have inconsistent spacing.
In reply to Right, but you keep sayign by Marc Sabatella
The rule of the equal spacing must be followed, that is not my invention.
However, there are no other staffs – that was not me but you that added in our discussion. IF there are other staffs, this rule is not applied if the rhythm is of the same value as the spacing in question; or of shorter values.
Here is my final explanation.
![shot 8.png]( "shot 8.png")
I can't find any rule that says that this uneven spacing must be followed, neither you or anyone else have found the same rule that confirms what you say. All "rules" you have shown above in our conversation is "variation" but not the exact same situation. Yes, the music engraving is exact, and some general rules cannot cover all engraving variants.
However, I have find numerous examples from different publishers, of the even spacing applied. Why is it so hard to accept as (if you want an additional) rule, I am curious. How many examples I need to present you to accept? Why is it so hard?
In reply to The rule of the equal spacing by edizioneo
The problem continues to be that you ignore the effect of your proposed rule on other staves. Yes, I get that in simplistic cases containing only a single staff, it is possible to get equal spacing. But this will necessarily make other staves *not* equal. As I keep saying, it is *physically impossible* to have all staves have equal spacing if the notes are to align. So in order to implement a rule that explains how to space notes, the rule has to explain how to deal with this. And that is what I keep asking for - a clearly stated rule, preferably backed by a respected authority on the subject, that fully explains the correct spacing on *all* staves - which staves should get equal spacing, which should get unequal spacing, and how the alignment is to be performed. I showed you examples that clearly demosntrated multiple apprioaches used by one publisher in one edition of one work, so I simply don't see any clear and obvious "rule" to follow here.
I'm perfectly willing to consider implementing such a rule, but I cannot implement a rule that no one has yet explained fully. A rule that only handles music of one staff is not useful. We need a rule that explains how to handle multiple staves. It is as simple as that.
In reply to The problem continues to be by Marc Sabatella
OK, this is my last post in this topic, since I see that it goes in circles:
You have proposed Bach DWK, which I have analysed and extracted examples from numerous editions of the same snippet/measure which show definitely difference between all of them versus what you say and what MuseScore does. You simply ignore them. All these snippets are examples from the multistave and multivoiced polyphony. I simply cannot find any other better example, than examples what you have proposed and I have shown: from the literature and numerous editions.
I know that you as a developer must tell in the code 'what and how to do'. The rule is perfectly clear in the snippets above, and only MuseScore shows clear oddities in one single way. By analysing them, the rule can be extracted, perhaps more complex that what is now present. But that is the beauty of engraving and I think, as I have told in my first post, this is very important and you could profit a lot.
Thank you.
In reply to OK, this is my last post in by edizioneo
I'm sorry I seem unable to explain why those examples are *not* clear. Again, the ones *you* posted cannot be used to derive a rule because they don't show how other staves are handled, while the ones *I* posted cannot be used to derive a rule because they actually show multiple different rules being followed at different times. So there quite simply is no way to derive one single rule from the posted examples, nor has anyone managed to find a definitive statement on the subject in any reference on the subject.
So all I can say is, again, if you can post a rule from a respected authority that actually explains how to handle spacing in these situations - *including* how to handle the alignment and spacing in other staves - I am happy to implement it. But until I see such a rule, there is little I can do. Let me know if you do hear back from Elaine Gould.
In reply to QUOTE1:The Chaconne is of by edizioneo
Creating equal space in these cases necessarily means taking *more* space. There is physically no way around that either. That is why I keep observing that there is a tradeoff between total space and consistency that has to be considered. This tradeoff is why we allow accidentals to create inconsistent spacing, for example.
Again, seeing the many different ways actual published music handle these cases should propve quite conclusively that there is no one "correct" solution - just different approaches that professional engravers choose accfording to the situation, to decide *where* to place the inconsistency and how to balance it against the need to conserve space.
In reply to QUOTE1:The Chaconne is of by edizioneo
Why is the Chaconne unique? Because it is a multi voice piece notated in a single staff. Hence a lot of the problems one usually has (and that Marc is so "infuriatingly" concerned with) do not occur. So what works for the Chaconne will not always work for a piano part with two staffs or an organ part with three. And I just don't think we ought to spend an awful lot of time working on features that only work properly in such an exceptional circumstance. Easier to just fix the problems manually as they occur. Yet even so you have to make a choice: Either the four eighths are evenly spaced and the dotted note is out of alignment or else the other way around (or both are not precisely aligned to achieve the smallest average deviations). The Chaconne is also unique in that nobody sightreads it. Hence all those niceties of alignment and spacing--which are designed to facilitate reading--are not even as necessary as for pieces that are routinely sightread like orchestra parts.
As to page turns: Maybe I am "unprofessional" as a typesetter / engraver, but I am also a player of chamber music. Have you ever sightread a piece with a group and had to turn the page in less than one beat? How did that go? And what is the point of professionalism of engravers if such vital concerns of the users of printed music fail to be addressed?
In reply to Why is the Chaconne unique? by azumbrunn
Chaconne is not more unique than other pieces of Bach, and the example I posted is absolutely not more complex than Czerny piano piece's for kids.
Honestly speaking, I have live-performed numerous times complete Solo Sonatas No 1-3 and complete partitas No 2 and 3 (only B-minor I haven't); including Chaconne (and I am planning to release a recording of it).
I have also performed (though not live) numerous of preludes and fugues from DWK 1 and 2.
So well I have some knowledge of what Chaconne is. It is great music, and technically less difficult than Cmaj fugue, and not more complex, to say, some of keyboard pieces of Bach, including his 5-voice fugue from DWK.
And after postgraduate in Composition I have thought "Notation" at the Royal College. I will not tell you more what I have in my repertoire, but it is vast, including Bartok Solosonata or Ysaye Sonatas; and my works have been played by NY Phil, for example.
About page turns, yes I know what you mean. I have been playing for years in string quartet, and have extremely quick sight reading (this include long sessions of string quartet music); but not-well spaced music is not welcome to professionals. That I can confirm.
Example from E Gould p.313 versus MuseScore default:
![20160510_170534-1.jpg]( "20160510_170534-1.jpg")
![shot 6.png]( "shot 6.png")
E Gould (first measure)
MuseScore output:
In reply to Example from E Gould p.313 by edizioneo
With regard to the half notes, yes, this is a case where manual adjustment is necessary. The rule we follow is correct in *other* situations, but we have no way currently of detecting which situations are which.