How do I change the "Written" measure duration of a measure?

• Oct 22, 2011 - 10:43

I have this choir score had an Alto 2nd stave starting with a 1/4 pick-up measure, and, because I changed the "Instrument" of that stave to "Mezzosoprano" as that is better according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto, I lost the pick-up measure.

I know I can change the "Real" value of the measure by right-clicking on it and selecting measure properties, but that only lets me edit the "Real" value of it, and so, I have a huge "break" there right now that is inconsistent with the other quarter breaks that the 3 staves have.

HELP?

Comments

• Oct 22, 2011 - 11:23

Yup, it was, though that is still confusing. It's not simmetric with the other breaks on the other 4 rows and if this would occur anywhere in the score it would be confusing for a director or performer.

I like things nice and simmetric without so many odds and ends...

And, for people who don't see so well, it's quite hard to distinguish between a whole measure rest and a 4/4 measure rest, I forget what that is called in English as English is not my native language...

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 11:25

See, that's the kind of extra work that I absolutely HATE doing as it's confusing and useless to me...

Music notation software really has to be 1 on 1 because it's written on paper through math not subjective poetry.

Music theory is objective, not subjective.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 13:20

There's no need to change the instrument to change the staff name.

If you right-click the first measure and choose Staff Properties, you can edit the long and short staff names to what ever you choose.

That way you don't lose pickup bars etc.

BTW convention in choral scores is to use Alto for the second line down, even if it is being sung by mezzos.

HTH
Michael

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 13:54

"Maybe the answer should be that changing instrument shouldn't affect an anacrusis.

Perhaps an issue needs opening on this??"

RIGHT ON ChurchOrganist!

I wrote an other reply in regards to the whole Alto thing which I personally utterly dislike, it's just one big stupid compromise... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto

If we use "Alto" as a Voice type instead of "Mezzosoprano" then what do we do with the male altos?

Researchable info on Wikipedia says it best: "alto, like the other three standard modern choral voice classifications (soprano, tenor and bass) was originally intended to describe a part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture, rather than an individual voice type[2]"

That's why I always go for Mezzosoprano.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 19:41

Daniel quotes the wikipedia article on "alto" as saying, "alto, like the other three standard modern choral voice classifications (soprano, tenor and bass) was originally intended to describe a part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture, rather than an individual voice type[2]" and then adds "That's why I always go for Mezzosoprano". But that's not the proper conclusion. Right there in the statement quoted, it makes the intended distinction clear: when writing *choral* music, it is absolutely correct to use the term "alto", and you'll find virtually univeral adherence to that. Virtually all published *choral* music uses that term, and virtually none uses "mezzosoprano". But the latter term is indeed more proper when writing for *solo* voice, particularly in a classical style.

Not that this means you have to do it this way, of course, and I do agree the behavior described is a bug as it applies to pickup measures. But just as a word of advice, if you are writing music for other people to read, it does help to write it in the same way as the other music people are accustomed to reading, and that absolutely means using the term "alto" rather than "mezzosoprano" when writing *choral* music.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 20:49

"In common usage, alto is used to describe the voice type that typically sings this part, though this is not strictly correct: alto, like the other three standard modern choral voice classifications (soprano, tenor and bass) was originally intended to describe a part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture, rather than an individual voice type[2]; neither are the terms alto and contralto interchangeable or synonymous, though they are often treated as such. Although some women who sing alto in a choir are contraltos, many would be more accurately called mezzo-sopranos (a voice of somewhat higher range and different timbre), and many men countertenors"

This seems pretty clear to me. "alto was originally intended to describe a part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture, rather than an individual voice type."

"In common usage, alto is used to describe the voice type that typically sings this part, though this is not strictly correct"

I have 0 regards for musical theory compromises that occur due to legalizing common mistakes "just because"...

You see, the term "Alto" is also used to denot instruments, and, only causes confusion... Mezzosoprano is standalone and it tends to tie the voices together because of the wording rather than giving them such an independent feel when called "Alto"...

Not to mention that the word also denotes a clef amongst other things... How's THAT for the spoofing of a word?

Now you see why I prefer Mezzosoprano? There's 0 confusion with that term, it denotes one thing alone, there's no confusion about that.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 21:05

"Common usage" is the key here. Calling it Alto is intuitive (!)
I don't know any instument calle 'Alto'. Only Atlo something. But there is Sopranos something too and also Bass something. So why use this in a choir? Right: common usage, intutive...
Give a Score with Soprano, Mezzosoprano, Tenor and Bass to a (non-pro) choir and they would be very confused.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 21:15

Well, that is precisely the case, I'm not dealing with non-pros here...

There's an Alto CLEF also, how weird is that?

You can read more on the soprano here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprano

The case of Soprano something that you are talking about is something like soprano saxofone, though that is framed that way mainly because of the ambitus of the soprano voice type itself rather than being something else...

Alto is not the classical notation for this, and, Alto just means "high" which is pretty unconclusive and impersonal...

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 21:23

I don't remember that meaning "above" compare how old the terms are also, that's also a vector worth taken into consideration.

I couldn't find the "above" definition on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprano if you say stuff, please also reference it so others can also read facts if there are any and make up their own minds about the subject.

To the best of my knowledge it's an Italian word as many music theory words are.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 21:14

You write: This seems pretty clear to me. "alto was originally intended to describe a part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture". Indeed, that is very clear. "A part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture" is just a fancy way of saying, "every piece of choral music that has ever been written". In other words, Wkikipedia is saying "alto was originally intended to describe a part within choral music", and that's *still* exactly how the term continues to be used, by everyone in the entire world.

Look at *any* published music for choir, and see if you can find even one example that uses the term mezzosoprano instead of alto. I doubt you will succeed. Use of the term alto is practically universal. If you try to give people choral music that labels the part mezzosoprano, people will be confused. if your goal is to confuse people, then go ahead. But if your goal is top produce music that people will actually want to read, then it will help to make it consistent with how music has been written for the last several centuries. This isn't a "music theory compromise" - it's just acknowledging univeral common practice. Why go out of your way to write music no one will want to read because it is written differently than everything else they've ever seen?

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 13:51

That convention is a compromise and whoever it is that voted does not know Latin.

If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto you'll see how ambigous that term actually is, especially to Romance speaking languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_language

And anyways, an alto and a soprano are 2 entirely different ranges of ambitus and timbre, they are not one and the same thing.

Not to mention that there are male altos as well...

And last and most important: "alto, like the other three standard modern choral voice classifications (soprano, tenor and bass) was originally intended to describe a part within a homophonic or polyphonic texture, rather than an individual voice type[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto

So, in truth, there IS no alto... I trust Wikipedia's extremely high-quality standards, especially when I can read where the information came from and make up my own mind in regards to it.

In Romanian, "Alto" sounds like a culturalised form of saying "an other"... So, yeah, mezzosoprano is way clearer and precise.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:03

"So, yeah, mezzosoprano is way clearer and precise."

Unless your second choral part is being sung by counter-tenors :)

But in the context of female only top 2 parts - yes it is more precise.

Incidentally, how did you change instrument?

I've just been playing with this and using Change Instrument from the Stave Properties dialogue leaves the anacrusis as it was.

That's on MuseScore 1.1 Windows XP Home SP3

Regards
Michael

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:25

I hit "i", deleted the Alto, and added the mezzosoprano in it's place. Of course the top 2 parts are female only, one can't have a male mezzosoprano :D LOL!

I know realise that I didn't just change the instrument on the current stave, I actually deleted the stave and created a new one with the mezzosoprano. Still, shouldn't this have kept the previous measure structure? Or at least have lead me to the next window that allows me to choose a pick-up measure?

I know realise that I ran into an other issue, adding an other instrument does not hold to the other measures in the system.

I have just added a kazoo at the bottom of a 4 voice system and yet again, that confusing whole measure rest thing is driving me confused alltogether because it looks exactly like the other whole measure rests that only "rest" 3 quarters, not 1.

What I learned in school was that in order to differentiate a 4/4 measure rest from a whole measure rest, the whole measure rest would be "glued" to the bottom of a stave line, not to the top of it as the other ones are!

I think THIS is the idea that will put to rest all of this confusion generated by theese blasted whole measure rests that I for one never remember learning of...

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:44

Yes, but in the case of a score with 3/4 in time, all measures contain equal ammounts of time whereas a pick-up measure is NOT equal to all of the other measures in regards to contained time, which is WHY the pick-up measure must clearly specify HOW much it represent out of the time signature, otherwise the artist will probably keep a whole time signature break and not even realise that's a pick-up measure.

That's the issue!

There's silent music out there you guys, it has to be all perfect and exact.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:49

Yes indeed it should keep the rhythmic structure, and I have run foul of this behaviour myself.

I have just discovered that selecting the first rest and deleting it in the new part makes it fit the anacrusis (a single beat - haven't tried it with more yet.)

Still it would be good for it to behave properly in the first place.

Have opened an issue on this: #13262: Full bar rest in instrument added to score with anacrusis

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:40

So I cam to the conclusion that all of this was actually not a bug but a HUGE confusion generated by the fact that whole measure rests look the same though they contain different ammounts of time.

What I learned in first grade at the "Arts Highschool" in Târgu-Mureş, Romania is that in order to differentiate a whole measure rest from a measure rest that only contains 4 quarters one is to "stick" the whole measure rest to the bottom of the stave line, and not to the top of it as 4 quarter rests are.

That would TOTALLY eliminate any confusion, and I'm guessing Wikipedia might back me up, let me have a look.

Yup, I'm right, have a look for yourself guys!!! There IS a difference between the two!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_(music)

Whole measure rest = 4 quarters, that's what I learned in school. We took the quarter as the "length of reference", did they teach me wrong?

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:46

The later one should clearly NOT look identical to the other one they should clearly be different, just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_value and see that the symbols are different, one is appended to the top of a stave line while the other is appended to the bottom of a stave line.

If that would have been implemented from the beggining of MuseScore, no confusions like these would have happened, and I wouldn't have made a fool of myself by writing this huge thread...

See guys, THIS is what I mean "basic music notation elements".

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:57

You are confusing the minim rest (half note) which sits on the 3rd line with the semibreve (whole note rest) which hangs from the fourth line.

It is the semibreve rest which is also used as a full bar rest, not the minim rest.

Although personally i think this is a nonsense in scores with a minim beat.

I have seen a short bar looking like half a semibreve rest used to denote a full bar rest, and maybe this would be a sensible way of dealing with this?

This version of the full bar rest is written on the 3rd line, and covers the spaces on either side IIRC.

It's found most often in orchestral scores, and I have yet to find the symbol in MuseScore.

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 15:03

I'm not confusing those two, it's just that there's no visual difference for those two...

I learned in school that a semibreve = 4 quarters and a minim is only 2 quarters.

I posted an other comment at the end of this thread which explains my confusion in a clearer way...

See, if all of this would have been clear from the beggining, all of us wouldn't have wasted all of this precious time and e-mail traffic and everything else.................

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 15:07

oh yeah, I did do a bit of confusion trying to explain that, (again because of being tired and so confused by all of this counter-intuitiveness that I see...

At least I knew something was wrong :D

In any case, a minim and a semibreve are not identical, the semibreve is appended to the bottom of the 4th 5 line stave and the minim is appended to the top of the 3rd line in the stave.

But anyways, I have finally been able to come up with a better description of this whole confusion at the bottom of this huge useless thread that I created........

Reply

• Oct 22, 2011 - 14:54

How is anyone going to tell that the first Kazoo rest in this score only actually takes up 1/4th as opposed to the 3/4s it displays? If I select that first Kazoo measure and hit "Del" than it does turn that rest into a 1/4 rest, but the problem is it should be doing this from the beggining, otherwise people might be mislead to think otherwise, especially in silent music, and also in other instances that are more complicated than this one.

In short, none of this huge thread would have happened if that pick-up measure would have shown the actual time it contains.

There is nothing to show that that whole measure rest has the value of 1/4th as opposed to the 3/4ths it's suggesting as one would be looking at this screenshot.

Attachment Size
confusion.jpg 52.81 KB
after del.jpg 47.57 KB

Reply

• Mar 9, 2012 - 22:14

Hmmm... in fact, I didn't notice the thread was oldish....!

It was listed as being I think 1 or 2 days old (I can't remember exactly) and I blindly assumed the bulk of it was recent.

Sorry, my mistake. But anyway, on occasions, I cannot understand the timing of the "Last Reply" in the forum list.

M.

Reply

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.