Layout Errors
Dear Forum, Please see attachment below, pg 66 2nd measure and pg 67 1st measure. These measures (and occasional measures in this file it appears) are stretched out. How to fix? This is a bug from 1.3 file being opened in 2+ I already removed the 1.3 Line breaks in 2+ so that won't be the answer. Thank You
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Anasazi_Act_I._File_#_3_Continued_pv_score_pg15-32__full_score_pg_52-85.mscz | 134.26 KB |
Comments
Ciao delhud2, sorry, maybe I did not understand ...
I see that the bar 102, p 65 has the break. Maybe you have to eliminate it
In reply to Ciao delhud2, sorry, maybe I by Shoichi
Hi, I will look into that! I thought I had all the breaks gone, as I selected all similar elements in the entire score. Thanks
In reply to Hi, I will look into that! I by delhud2
There are actully dozens of line breaks still present, so perhaps the version you created with the line breaks removed was saved elsehwere and you are loading the wrong version? The score you posted shows as having been last modified several months ago (July 29).
In reply to Ciao delhud2, sorry, maybe I by Shoichi
Check it
___edit___
To fool around a little here is a possible cover.
Regards ;-)
In reply to Check it ___edit___ To fool by Shoichi
Hi, I am not sure what you mean by cover? I did open the attachment to pg. 66 and 67, and there are still stretched out measures present. Thanks
In reply to Hi, I am not sure what you by delhud2
When your work will be published, the book will have a cover page I think ;-)
OK, I will check that possibilty out. The last modification could have been that long ago. I am just gradually trying to get all the files from 1.3 "fixed" in 2+ and try to be done with it.
Hi, It turns out that my first attachment above was not the right version of the file. Sorry. Please see attachment below which does have line breaks removed, but pg 66 2nd measure is stretched out and pg. 67 1st measure stretched out. How could those, and any others like that be fixed? "Return to Original" or something? Thank You
In reply to Hi, It turns out that my by delhud2
pg 66 2nd measure (measure 151): the space required for tenor and baritone (lyrics);
pg. 67 1st measure (measure 158): Layout/Decrease stretch.
attachments:
Del1, as it appears on my pc;
Del (joking) Book cover;
and the modified score
In reply to pg 66 2nd measure (measure by Shoichi
Hi Shoichi,
First of all, I LOVE the book cover! It looks suitably ancient also for those OLD Anasazis! Thanks for sharing! Once I get the bugs out of the 2+ versions more, I will start submitting, I am sure I can find a performance somewhere in the world. I do also have to enter a new shorter symphonic score in the near future for the Boulder CO Philharmonic Orchestra as they plan to perform my tone-poem, "Ode to the Rockies." I'm glad it will be only 39 or so pages long of score! And NO voices! And it will be done in MS 2.0.3. Shouldn't be full of bugs.
Now, on the tech aspects, are you sure the measure stretch is really because of tenor and baritone voices? There is only one word under those two slurred eighth notes. It looks weird to me. Could it be because there are 1. and 2. lyrics? But that doesn't seem right to me either. This is one time I might have to disagree with you? Thanks, Yours, Del
In reply to Hi Shoichi, First of all, I by delhud2
If I select the lyrics, as in the image, and delete
the spacing is changed.
If I select 'We' and delete, then enter it under the next note, the spacing still change
but I'm not a specialist, I only do experiments with scores.
Best regards.
In reply to If I select the lyrics, as in by Shoichi
;-) and ... that book could be found, at the end opera, in the ruins of an antique 'pueblo'?
In reply to ;-) and ... that book could by Shoichi
Who knows? I'm into metaphysics, time-warps, etc!
In reply to If I select the lyrics, as in by Shoichi
OK, I will study this. (Don't have time right now) . Isn't there some way you can increase/decrease the width of a measure in MS? I went back on the original MS 1.3 file on this and those two pages, and find that the MEASURE ITSELF IS WIDER than the others on the pages 66-67 in 2.0.3 (though in 1.3 the page numbers are not the same) rather than 2+ stretching out the 8th note beam needlessly wide and odd- ?( I am afaid to try to post the 1.3 file as I try to not get them mixed up and change the 1.3 into the 2+. (I keep the 1.3 files separate on my computer, but as I have many versions , in documents, I dont know which one will open as the 1.3 . From my desktop shortcut, it will open as an 1.3 , but to browse I have to find it in Documents of course..looking! Can anyone help with this?
In reply to OK, I will study this. by delhud2
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/layout-and-formatting#layout-stretch
Double-click the file: it will be opened with the associated program (on my old Vista it is 1.3);
Right-click on File-> Open With -> choose the program. Here I have the choice between 1.3 / 2.0.3 / Nightly
If you want you can change your PC settings:
Right-click -> Open With -> Default Program ...
Select the program and put the check on 'Always use the selected program to open this file'
In reply to [inline:YJ.png] by Shoichi
OH, OK. Thank you-- I will try working with this info! In the 1.3 file, the measure itself is wider instead of the 8th notes beam being stretched out--it all looks fine in 1.3.WIll see if I can get the 1.3 attached ok. Later, Del
In reply to [inline:YJ.png] by Shoichi
Please disregard. Apparently you cannot delete a comment. The attachment below does not work, won't delete either. It was the 1. 3 file in question, but when I chose MS 1.3 to open it with, a notice from MS comes up "cannot read, your MS is too old ,Upgrade now! "This will need to be a new Forum optic, if all the 1.3 files cannot be browsed, etc. I got the file to open on my computer screen, but it cannot be browsed for an attachment!
OK, I see the non-working attachment DID delete.
In reply to Please disregard. Apparently by delhud2
If 1.4 complains the file is too new, then you did not in fact pick the correct file - you must have picked a version saved with 2.0
In reply to pg 66 2nd measure (measure by Shoichi
The spacing problem in 151 is simple - you apparently attached the word "From" to the wrong syllable of the second verse in the Tenor part, and then applied an inapproprtiate manual adjustment to attempt to correct that error. The manual adjustment was not treated properly by 1.3, causing it to not allocate space correctly and that is why the adjustment you made was inappropriate - it only *looked* right because of the bug in 1.3. But now you are seeing the true effects Simply attach the lyric properly to the first note, with no manual adjustment, and all is well.
Same story in measure 158 - you have lyrics attached to the wrong notes and then adjusted inappropriately. Simply reattach the notes correctly and don't apply manual adjustments, and all is well.
That is kind of what I thought. I have several versions saved in 2.0, and in "Show how to open this file I have both MS 1.3, and MS 2, Only ONE file will actually open the original 1.3 file, it opens in Documents, but it will NOT browse! I cannot get it to be an attachment in the Forum to illustrate how MS 2.0.3 stretched out eighth note beams oddly in certain measures.I have 2 version of Docs on my computer, one with little pictures like downloads and the other just columns of titles of files, etc. maybe a quirk of my Vista program? Don't know..The one 1.3 file that will display but not browse is a little picture one. (Of course, all my 13. files I kept separate will display on my screen, but they have to be browsed from Documents.I don't see any way to use them as attachments to something) maybe I should COPY all the 1. 3 files, and then rename the copies and then they would be accessabe from Documents? This is such a challenge to try working with 2 different versions of MS. Thank You
In reply to That is kind of what I by delhud2
Ciao Del, try to attach here one of your files saved with 1.3
__edit__
No matter, I have retrieved a file from this old conversation: https://musescore.org/en/node/24597
and this is the resulting PDF from 1.3
In reply to Ciao Del, try to attach here by Shoichi
For a comparison: PDF exported from 2.0.3
In reply to Ciao Del, try to attach here by Shoichi
Ciao Shoichi,
The PDF file looks beautiful! It has the white background etc. of the 2+ MS However, it's not the file I'm working on in this thread. Can't get that file when I browse to select and be an attachment. Suffice it to say the eighth note beams are stretched out oddly in MS 2 on the pages and measures I specified and maybe other places, whereas they are fine in 1.3.
Were you suggesting that I maybe should just use the 1.3 files for the Opera, and have them be PDF files or what? I don't think that would work a lot of the time, as there are things you cannot now do or upload using the old 1.3 version.
In reply to Ciao Shoichi, The PDF file by delhud2
Hi Del, I'm afraid to confuse you with my poor knowledge of the language. So I do these observations based on my personal experience (not much).
If I saved my scores, with 1.3, I can open them with 2.0.3; Then 'Save as' and choose an appropriate name, not very long, preferably, for example, p. 1- 35; p. 36-70 etc.
I can select those files and copy them into a new folder named, for example 'Revision 1 October 2016';
Then, calmly, open them with 2.0.3 and check patiently layout and other details.
You'll probably find a bit 'of errors and inaccuracies, you can correct them (I think you can rely on the community).
Some elements might be out of place (due to the transition from the old to the new version).
Select them, use Ctrl+R to reset them, then adjust the position with Inspector (or delete and enter them again).
Little by little, the score will assume its final appearance.
I think your main focus is music, so consider the possibility of making correct your work by those who are more familiar with the software, you may find someone here: https://musescore.org/services
It may be an idea?
In reply to Hi Del, I'm afraid to confuse by Shoichi
Hi Shoichi,
Thanks for your latest post. I had never even heard of MS.org /services. I will look at that idea.
I had already pretty much been opening 1.3 files with 2, and then they become MS 2+ files, and you work at correcting the errors, and, as you say, the score gradually gets finalized.
I like how you explained how you would open 1.3 files with 2.0.3 etc.I will try adopting that logical method! i will do it step by step as you suggested, (Yes, my main focus is music, technology is not my strongest point.)
In reply to That is kind of what I by delhud2
I don't uynderstand what you mean "it will NOT browse" - what are you you trying to do, using what program, what do you expect to see happen, what happens instead? Sounds like you are having basic issues learning how to use folders and file naming to store files on your computer and access them using Explorer, not a MuseScore problem per se?
Explorer in Windows has the option to display little icons for files or to disp;lay just the names. It also has the ability to use different settings for different folders. It sounds like maybe you have one folder set to show you icons, the other set to just show you names. It is important to understand this is *not* a MuseScore issue - it's basic Windows stuff. And unfortunately, it seems a number of your questions regarding managing multiple versions of files fall into the same category. I think you might benefit from taking a class in basic Windows usage to better understand how files and folders work etc, and then you will be better equipped to organize things in a way that helps you keep things straight. This is not a criticism - no one is just born knowing this stuff, we all have to learn it.
It is also possible you are getting confused by the backu versions of files that MuseScore creates - these have names starting with a period and ending with a comma. You should ignore those.
In reply to I don't uynderstand what you by Marc Sabatella
All right, I was not trying to blame MS for everything, in fact, I suspected it was a computer problem on my part. I DO understand about the backup files MS has. However, there is no doubt that 2+ , instead of widening the whole measure, just stretched out one beat of eighth notes with their beam. etc. Looks funny. Want to fix it in 2+ However, it's NOT earth-shaking!
IN looking at the PDF file of a 1.3from the opera, I find that it all looks so good! The timpani trills are over the timp., not displaced , as so often in 2+, dynamic marks are where they should be, etc. etc. many other details, but it's still just a 1.3 file out of date. however, wondering if I should abandon my plan to get my files into 2+ and fixed there to work, or if It all could be left as 1.3s? Something tells me that would not be a good idea. Whatever I do, I'm sticking with MS to work it all out, I would never enter the opera into another co Finale, etc. So I do have to learn to do the best I can on MS and with you MS directors, etc. am very happy to have had MS and all the Forum help. Will also study up on Windows, etc.
In reply to All right, I was not trying by delhud2
Did you see my earlier response in https://musescore.org/en/node/124971#comment-571971? If you are talking about those beams, it is your inappropriate manual adjustments to the lyrics that is stretching those beams out.
Without knowing more about what you mean regarding trills or dynamics, my guess is the issue is similar - you attached things incorrectly in 1.3 then applied manual adjustments that happened to cancel out that mistake and make things look correct for the moment, but as soon as the layout changes for any reason - whether still in 1.3 or with a change to 2.0.3 - those adjustments turn out to be correct. The fix will be the same - remove the markings, attach them correctly, and don't use manual adjustments as a workaround for incorrectly attached symbols.
My impression is that there are enough places where this sort of thing has happened that it might indeed take a while to correct them all. So if your score is basically done, I'd just keep in 1.3 and not worry about fixing it for 2.03. But keep in mind, the sort of issues I am talking about will strike you just as surely in 1.3 if you change anything about the layout - adding measures, changing staff size, etc. So if you do plan on making any significant edits, you'll end up having to fixc those errors anyhow. In which case you are better off doing so in 2.0