Restrictions in changing Beam Properties
1. Open attached score.
2. Select second quaver.
3. In 'Beam Properties', double-click 'No beam'.
4. Select first quaver.
5. Double-click 'Start beam'.
Result: Beam between first and second quavers isn't applied.
Other steps:
4. Select the third quaver.
5. Double-click 'No beam'.
6. Select the second quaver.
7. Double-click 'Start beam'.
Result: Beam between first and second quavers is broken.
8. Double-click 'Start beam'.
Result: Beam between second and third quaver isn't applied.
Using MuseScore 1.1 and 2.0 Nightly Build (5386) - Mac 10.6.8.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Restrictions in changing Beam Properties.mscz | 1.79 KB |
Comments
First description: it works as expected. First note is start of beam, second note is no beam, so there is no beam between the two notes.
Second description: Same cause, same effect.
I don't understand.
So seems we need an 'end beam' entry in the palette?
Confirmed that that is working as expected.
1. Start beam - this will start a beam provided the note isn't flagged as No beam
2. Mid beam - this makes the note part of the current beam provided the note isn't flagged as No beam
3. No beam - flags a note as no beam
Perhaps we should make 1 and 2 override 3?
My expectation is that it would behave exactly as as it does. If you set a note to be "no beam", I expect that setting to be honored, even if I also imexplicably were to set the note before it to be "start of beam". Setting a note to "start of beam" when the following note is set to no beam should have the effect of making that first note unbeamed - it,s the start of a note group, so it breaks any beam leading into it, but it's also the end of a beam grouping, since the note that follows is set to no beam.
In other words, I don't see a problem here. Why would you set a note to be start of beam if the following note were no beam? If you want to turn off the no beam property on a note, do it directly, by setting to auto.
I still think we'd need an 'End Beam' button ...
While it wouldn't hurt, I don't see the need - is there something you see that doing that cannot be accomplished by setting the following note to either start of beam or no beam? Said another way - is there some particular arrangement of notes that can't be created currently? I've never encountered one (other than the lack of sub-beaming).
a) if I want to habe a beam ending at note n, currently I have to go to note n+1 and set "start beam" there. Counterinutitive
b) if I have set 'no beam' on note n (by accident, possibly, maybe even in an attempt to have an "end beam") I have to go to note n+1 and set "middle of beam", again counterintuitive (andf then possible 'start beam' on note n+1). Not even setting 'start beam' on note n-1 helps, as this issue demonstrates.
I guess different people have different intuitions. I'd have a) as "if I want to have a beam start on note n, I don't want to have to go to note n-1 and set end of beam there - *that* would be counter-intuitive to me." In other words, the existing method of controlling starts of beams is much more intuitive to me than having to change my thinking to work in term of ends of beams. No harm, I guess, in allowing both methods, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't complicate the layout algorithms a little.
Regarding b), I don't understand. If you have no beam set on note n, why would you think you need to go a different note to change that? Just change note n back to auto (or to whatever else you want). I'm not understanding how this even relates to the issue of adding an "end of beam" property.
a) I don't want to get rid of the "start beam", so you can still use that. Nobody wants to force you to work the other way round. But I don't want to be force your way either ;-). Layout wise it shouldn't make any difference.
b) right, found that out after... but there is no auto in the beam palette.
A) Understood, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it might end up being more problematic than we think to allow both end of beam and start of beam. Not that I've totally thought it through, but I can imagine there being unexpected interactions should someone mix both styles in the same measure. MAybe that wouldn't happen, but the possibility does concern me a bit.
B) unless you perhaps deleted it from your Beams palette, there should be an A icon at the far right - that's how you reset to Auto.
a) Why probematic? Whether I use 'end beam" in note n or "start beam" on note n+1 shouldn't make any diffecence in the beaming. Only difference is in the usage.
b) Ah, now I see it, a black "A" on dark blue background, almost impossible to read...
A) I guess my concern was in cases where note N-1 and note N are in disagreement over whether there should be a beam between them. I suppose it's no worse than the case now where N-1 might be set to "middle of beam" but N set to "start of beam", but again, I haven't really thought it all through.
B) I guess that depends on your color scheme. It's doesn't look particularly unusual on my system, which looks just like the screen here:
http://musescore.org/en/handbook/beam
So maybe a separate report suggesting that this be improved in whatever color scheme you are using?
I don't know a lot about beams. What exists right now could be limiting. This is my view (correct if possibly wrong):
If you apply 'No beam' to a note, any beams connected to it are broken. However, it shouldn't represent a permanent immunity to any beaming.
One score that has different beaming to usual is this .
My own transcription is different (more accurate), but I'm unable to do some beams to notes.
I'm not sure if this is any solution, but might it not be a good idea to select the 2 notes and have an "apply beam" ability?
Xavierjazz, I thought about that too.
Could be a good idea.
I can't access the linked file - I get an error about it not being available in my country. so I can't tell what might be different about it than your version. can you describe in more detail what specifically you are having trouble doing?
also, I can't tell if you were trying to suggest that apply "no beam" *does* somehow represent permanent immunity from beaming, but that's certainly not the case. the note is only immune from beaming for as long you leave the "no beam" property applied. as soon as you change it to something else, like Auto, it beams normally.
Try searching for MN0043610.
OK, I found a site that shows the first page as a sample. Looking at it, though, I'm still not understanding what specifically you are having trouble with. Looks like in measure 2 you figured out how to get that basic beaming style - the trick is to set the property of the embedded rests to middle of beam (actually, even setting them to Auto works). Just do the same thing in the measures 1 and 4 and you should have what I assume you want. I just tried it and it worked exactly as expected. If there is something specific you were not able to achieve this way, could you describe it more precisely?
I managed it now - I had to drag-select the notes and then do 'Middle of beam'.
I'm still concerned though about limits - something doesn't seem right about the effects of 'No beam' (what was listed in my original post).
Again, could you be more specific? It seems completely straightforward to me. Any note with that proerpty set will have no beam, period. If you change you mind and want a beam later, then unset that property (set it back to Auto, or change to one pf the other properties). I am not understanding How this is limiting in any way.
Doesn't work worth a damn. My intent is not to bash but this should be easy and intuitive and isn't. Way to complex, way to bugyy to be useable. Deleting program for now and may check back later.
Best of luck.