Saxophone parts continuously stop playing at a specific measure
Hi all,
In this piece I'm writing, at measures 19 and 20, both the alto and tenor saxophone parts stop playing in beat 4 of measure 19, and don't start playing again until beat 4 of measure 20. I have tried updating, deleting and re-writing those measures, making sure that the notes don't have any mute on them.
This issue occurs whenever I play the music from any measure before measure 19, as well as during an .mp3 export. If I start playback on measure 19, the music plays. When listening to individual parts, there is no issue.
How can I fix this? I am using the latest version of MuseScore (noticed the issue today, and decided to update the the latest version and the issue persists)
Score is attached.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Ducks_got_feelings.mscz | 39.16 KB |
Comments
I have no idea why but I can confirm that those few notes sound quieter. I clicked on each measure (19 and 20) and pressed [Ctrl]-R to reset things back to their places (in case you had some weird misplaced notes) and then they played back normally. BUT, the score title in the tab does not show the usual asterisk which indicates that something in the score has changed. I then saved the file and opened it again and the problem had returned. Hmm, mystery (or something obvious that I can't because of too much mistletoe and wine lately).
In reply to I have no idea why but I can… by underquark
Haha, Thanks for trying! I hope we can fix this soon :)
Odd, for me it works fine if I start in bar 18, not if I start much earlier. I think the tuplets are part of the problem, but I can't prove it. Was this by chance begun in a relatively old version, say more than two years ago? There were some long-standing bugs in tuplet handling that were fixed around 3.1 or 3.2 that could maybe be a factor here.
In reply to Odd, for me it works fine if… by Marc Sabatella
This score was started and 'finished' today, started at 3.something, and then I decided to check for updates and updated to the latest version. So the bugs regarding tuplet handling is likely not the issue.
Thanks for trying to debug this! Really means a lot :)
I'm also not sure as to what the issue is; but it seems to be located in the piano part.
If you solo the piano and start playback from m17 you'll notice dropping notes (for as of yet an unknown reason).
If you mute the piano and start playback at m17 all other instruments seem to play just fine.
In the file there appears an odd reference to a pppp dynamic. Is this relevant?
In reply to Somewhere in the code there… by underquark
Yes, the pppp dynamic (and pppppp) dynamic are for the Alto and Tenor Parts, respectively, at the very last measure. I didn't write any dynamic changes at m.17, 18, 19, or 20 though. Could MuseScore be accidentally applying them there as well?
In reply to Yes, the pppp dynamic (and… by mridulsingh101
Probably not relevant, then. I just hadn't noticed them on the score as I was focusing on the affected part.
In reply to Probably not relevant, then… by underquark
gotcha, thanks.
In reply to Yes, the pppp dynamic (and… by mridulsingh101
I'm suspecting this is somehow related to another recently-reported issue, #328151: Playback not using pedal if started too far from the start of the pedal line.. That one seems actually pretty clear to me, like I understand completely how my theory about the source of the problem could be correct. In this case it really doesn't make sense, there's no reason for the playback to be looking ahead to the end of the score to establish the starting dynamic. But still, it seems plausible to me that there is some confusion here. Clearly MuseScore does normally look back to find the start dynamic. In this case, there is no start dynamic, and maybe MuseScore gets confused and looks to the end instead.
But unfortunately, adding a dynamic to the saxophone entrances (a good idea anyhow!) doesn't actually help. And deleting all dynamics doesn't solve it either. Which either completely ruins my theory, or just suggests it's more complicated.
In reply to I'm suspecting this is… by Marc Sabatella
Hi Marc,
Thanks for looking into this! And yes, I too added starting dynamics to all the parts (I had forgotten to do so initially), and as you found out that doesn't help.
(not related to the problem you asked)
I would like to state that it would be more accurate to write the work with a 3/4 (or 6/4) time signature. So I added it by rewriting up to certain part.