Something I find weird about measure numbers...
I have never seen this on any sheet music, but the way MS positions measure numbers looks odd to me. If the measure numbers are every line and appear above the staff or bracket on the left, shouldn't they stay in that position throughout? If the measure is a pickup, the measure number moves to the barline preceding the first full measure, rather than the number of the first full measure appearing in the same position as all the other measure numbers. I've attached an image to show what I mean. I think that it should at least be an option.
The measure numbers moving creates a distraction, IMO.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Screen Shot 2019-04-04 at 11.46.51 AM.png | 120.97 KB |
Comments
For me, in the current release 3.05, I get the measure number where I expect by default. If I check the "exclude from measure count" in the partial measure, then it moves. If I instead use "Add to measure count" of -1, then it moves back. I think this was deliberate. As I recall, this was discussed by a few people a while back and there were pretty convincing examples from published music posted to back up their request, as I recall, and I think some sort of change was made, but to be honest I forget what they were arguing for or against.
In reply to For me, in the current… by Marc Sabatella
You can do that, but then the number changes to the previous measure/last beat, rather than the first full measure in the line. In other words, in my example, it changes to 12, when it should really be 13.
In reply to You can do that, but then… by Soolip
Hard to tell from just a picture, but if you don't want the measure numbering messed with, then you should neither exclude it nor use the -1, and in that case it should work - just as I said already happens by default. If you have some specific case where it seems not to, please attach your score so we can understand and assist better.
In reply to Hard to tell from just a… by Marc Sabatella
Hi Mark, I did exactly that. The measure number should be 13, in the same position as all the other measure numbers. However, when I choose to not exclude the numbering of the pickup measure and use -1, it changes to 12. To be clear, the measure number above the bracket SHOULD be the number of the first FULL measure in the line, not the previous measure.
I've attached it. The issue is on page 2, 3rd system. Thanks.
In reply to Hi Mark, I did exactly that… by Soolip
The default would have been exactly right then - why did you change the "Add to measure number" to -1? ut it back to the default of 0 and you get your 13 where you want it.
In reply to The default would have been… by Marc Sabatella
Hi, no this is not correct. If I use the default approach, the number moves. Technically it correctly number measure 13 as such, but not in the traditional way. The number 13 should be in the same position as the other measure numbers. A programmer may argue that the 16th note pickup is technically the last 1/16 of measure 12, but a musician would tell you it's not meausure 12, but the pickup to measure 13. Traditionally, the numbers at the beginning of each staff are the numbers of the first FULL measure that staff, not the pickup measures. I'm sorry, but I'm trying to be as clear a possible. I've never seen a measure number move around like in the screen shot I've attached here.
In reply to Hi, no this is not correct… by Soolip
Again, it works absolutely perfectly for me if I simply change that erroneous "-1" back to the default of 0. I guess you are saying you want the pickup to say 13 and the full measure to also be 13. Fine, so then set the full measure to exclude from the measure count.
I have attached the score where I made those changes and no others, and a screenshot of how it looks for me:
In reply to Again, it works absolutely… by Marc Sabatella
Ah, we crossed. Thank you!
In reply to The default would have been… by Marc Sabatella
I've gotten it to behave correctly here, in the attached screen shot. This is not the ideal solution for a more complicated piece of music with multiple parts.
In reply to I've gotten it to behave… by Soolip
What would you want differently? This is, after all, somewhat non-standard notation - the partial measure would not normally be counted as part of the subsequent measure. But even so, it takes all of a couple of seconds to exclude the following measure from the count when you want this effect.
In reply to What would you want… by Marc Sabatella
Some publishers number measures in this way, so I can't say how standard or non- it is. An option to number the measures by the first full measure in the line would be a good option. Probably not the most crucial feature on your list of many requests. :)