shrink just 1 measure?
Greetings
Is there a way to reduce stretch for 1 measure below 0.00 ? I'd love to reduce a hidden measure to a quarter inch or so without globally changing all other measures in the score. Unlike leading/trailing space in element inspector, measure properties--measure stretch doesn't accept negative settings. Fiddling with stretch on other measures in each system gets laborious after the first few systems. I have 2-3 hidden measures per page in a multi-page score.
I tried the element inspector, but it works only on specific elements, not the whole measure.
Thank you!
Comments
Right click, measure properties, stretch
In reply to Right click, measure… by Jojo-Schmitz
No so sorry, that's not working for this project.
I can't go below 0.00 in properties--measure stretch. It won't accept negative numbers.
In reply to No so sorry, that's not… by mmserp
Indeed, negative numbers won't work.
In reply to Indeed, negative numbers won… by Jojo-Schmitz
And fiddling with all the other measures in that system isn't practical.
So am I stuck with wider-than disired hidden measures?
In reply to And fiddling with all the… by mmserp
(sorry)
And fiddling with the other measures in systems with hidden measures isn't practical.
So, is there a kludge/work-around for a local measure shrinkage?
No, there is no way to make stretch negative, and indeed, due to the math of how this is implemented, it wouldn't help anyhow.
So let's back up - what is the actual goal here? Most likely whatever it is you are actually trying to do, is best accomplished a different way than using arbitrarily thin hidden measures (eg, frames). Can you attach your score and explain further?
In reply to No, there is no way to make… by Marc Sabatella
Goal: to make an exercise set of chords for 12 keys. Suggested arpeggiation fingering appears below the system pairs. I use a hidden bar to change the key back to C after displaying the key signature in 1st bar. I want accidentals visible in the chords. A gap keeps clutter minimal while keeping the information-only key signature bar visible. While the gap isn't bad for some keys, it's pretty wide for others like A major. The sevenths will be very tight.
The sample has G major 2d bar visible and A major 2d bar hidden.
In reply to Goal: to make an exercise… by mmserp
OK, if I am understanding correctly, I think we can come up with some better approaches here to achieve that result.
You could leave initial key signature alone and simply add "courtesy" accidentals everywhere. This is what I'd probably do.
You could add the key change back to C in the first "real" measure but make it invisible, and then adjust the "Trailing space" for that segment in the Inspector to close the gap.
You could create your key signatures as custom key signatures, thus rendering them ineffective, yielding the same end result as a change to C
You could add extra staves for the notes, set them to not show clefs or key signatures, add a horizontal frame between the measure with the key change and the first measure with notes, set that frame to zero width, and let "Hide empty staves" create the illusion this is all one staff (that probably didn't make much sense, but just as well, any of the other options I suggested are probably better)
Others?
In reply to OK, if I am understanding… by Marc Sabatella
Adding so many sets of courtesy accidentals turned into a quite lot of work, plus extra proofreading to make sure I put them all in correctly. A real challenge for a dyslexic keyboardist!
I rather like the visual "break" in the system for ease of reading everything in one system, plus a "Reminder" that this is a teaching exercise, not a music piece.
But you inspector leading/trailing space idea works beautifully for the back-to-C signatures and whole rests in bar 2. Then hide them, and result = a narrower gap.
In reply to Actually, adding so many… by mmserp
But YOUR inspector ...
(As i said, dyslexic keyboardist)
In reply to Actually, adding so many… by mmserp
Hide the bar itself, no need to hide the rests and key signatures in bar 2.
In reply to Actually, adding so many… by mmserp
FWIW, there is a plugin to add courtesy accidentals automatically that almost does what you'd want here when using the "all notes" option except it also puts naturals on the notes that aren't affected by the key signature. However, if you ran that plugin, then right-click a natural, select / more / same subtype, delete, you''d get what you want automatically in just a few seconds. Or, you could modify the plugin to not add the naturals. See https://musescore.org/en/project/add-and-remove-courtesy-accidentals
To me, the courtesy accidental approach is a far superior option than trickery involving hidden elements and manual adjustments, which is almost guaranteed to not look right in future versions with slightly different layout algorithms.
In reply to FWIW, there is a plugin to… by Marc Sabatella
For exercise projects like this one, I really prefer the "broken" look, partly for the reminder that this is NOT how accidentals appear in music scores.
But for tech exercises, so helpful to have key signature, chord name and show which notes require sharps or flats all together for sight memorization and muscle memory workouts. I already have all the tech exercise chord sets, just needed to add key signature bars for detail on same page.
The plug-ins sound PERFECT for music pieces though. Will keep the plug-ins in mind for those!
Thank you
In reply to For exercise projects like… by mmserp
If by "broken" you mean a gap between measures, use a horizontal frame instead of an invisible measure - again it easier and also safer.
In reply to If by "broken" you mean a… by Marc Sabatella
Thank you, but frames don't let me change key signature. As i explained above, for This technical/learning exercise, I just need a bar at beginning for information purposes. The hidden 2d bar lets me quickly change remaining bars to C and not have to deal with extra accidentals through the rest of the section. And no plug-in needed for this. Very quick, very simple to do. Minimal layout fiddling since hidden. No additional proofreading either.
I am very sorry if this goes against SOP for Musescore, but it does what I need done, no fuss no muss.
But I promise NOT to evangelize this approach:
PLEASE USE MARC's METHOD if you ever have a similar project.
In reply to Thank you, but frames don't… by mmserp
:-). Actually, thoughthough, I meant to still have the measure with the key change, just use a frame instead of an invisible measure after that if you want a break between the key change and the first "real" measure. I promise once you've taken the two minutes to install the plugin it is going to be easier that way, look better, and you won't have to redo it when 3.0 comes out as you almost certainly would doing it your way. but still, your choice of course.
In reply to :-). Actually, thoughthough… by Marc Sabatella
Still leaves an extra bar visible (#2 bar to revert to C). A couple inspector layout tweaks, hide 2d measure and things look fine for me pronto. No extra accidentals, just a "clean" system with no fuss. I've had So Very Very Very many headaches from no-longer-compatible plug-ins after version updates. Don't get me started on DOS-to-Windows, browser disfunctionality, email app catatonia, Spreadsheet chisenbop, word processing document meltdowns, database corruptions, heart to hearts with Tech Support, etc. But, if plug-ins do the job now and forever after for anyone, go forth with my sincere blessings! I mean that, truly.
But I certainly don't expect my way to work well for anyone else.
In reply to Still leaves an extra bar… by mmserp
Concerns about headaches after version updates are the number #1 reason to not do what you are doing now, because as I said before, I practically guarantee your existing scores created with hacks like these won't look the same in future versions, and the technique itself might not work the same either. It's precisely the sort of trouble you fear that I am trying to save you from, by recommending a course of action that is much more likely to survive a version update.
Again, the point with the frame + courtesy accidental approach is to avoid the second bar with the fake revert to C, so nothing to make invisible. It just works - no layout tweaks, no hidden measures - and best of all it is going to look and work the same in future versions since it is doesn't rely on layout-dependent hacks.
In reply to Concerns about headaches… by Marc Sabatella
i gently repeat, my headaches came from PLUG-INs and ADD-ONs not behaving with version updates and version upgrade releases.
If Version 3 trashes layout stretch, a whole lot more will go off the rails than just a hidden bar!
In reply to i gently repeat, my… by mmserp
It's not that layout stretch will be "trashed", but because the layout algorithms will have changed (pretty dramatically), default measure widths will have changed as well, so The amount of stretch that worked in 2.x will likely look quite different in 3.0. Plus other adjustments like segment leading / trailing space will likely work rather differently, with the same result - scores that relied on hacks like these to achieve a given look will struggle much more than scores that achieved that same look throUgh conventional means.
Even if the courtesy plugin stops working for some reason, and no built-in functionality III snadded to replace it, your existing scores that used the plug-in will continue to work perfectly.
That is why the approach I am advocating is so much safer and why I keep urging you to consider it. I don't want to see you have to redo all of this work - I'd like to help you find ways of doing it right the first time.