Restarting measure numbers
I would like to restart the measure numbers in a multi-movement work. How do I do that?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
I would like to restart the measure numbers in a multi-movement work. How do I do that?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
See: https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/measure-operations#properties
add to measure number (the box accepts negative numbers)
Easiest way is to add a section break at the end of your previous movement.
If you for some reason don't want that, then use the "add to measure number" field in measure properties and give it a corresponding negative value.
In reply to Easiest way is to add a… by jeetee
Ahahaha now I get it. I’ve been wondering about that field for awhile. Thank you.
(I still wish there was a way to reset measure count without creating a line break. This workaround gets messy every time you make cuts.)
In reply to Ahahaha now I get it. I’ve… by rkhirst
There is!
A section break automatically restarts measure numbering. This is normally used for the beginning of a "movement" (and the like). So obviously, it is also a line break.
To change measure numbering in the middle of a system, use the other method you were told of: right-click on a measure (in the blank space, not on any note or rest), click Measure properties from the context menu, then modify the Add to measure number value. See the example below.
The blue highlit measure number has had -8 added to it.
In reply to There is! A section break… by TheHutch
Alas, “Without creating a line break”. There is not.
The problem with the second method is that it does not reset the count. A cut, insertion, renumbering, or any other adjustment of the measure count preceding a measure subtraction (method 2) will result in a nonsensical change in measure numbers; for example, to a negative value. This is manageable for short works but not for large scale works where arbitrary performance cuts are to be expected.
(I admit I am personally cold on these adjustments mid-movement. Buuut it’s a thing).
In reply to Alas, “Without creating a… by rkhirst
Okay, first, the "line break" has nothing to do with it here. Only a "section break" actually resets measure number. [Yes, Jojo, you're definitely right!]
Second, after making "a cut, insertion, renumbering or any other adjustment of the measure count", the scorist simply needs to correct the immediately subsequent subtraction, and the rest fall into place correctly. They must correct that subsequent subtraction immediately, before performing any other numbering changes.
It's not perfect, but it's not as terrible a thing as you seem to imply. It's definitely not impossible.
In reply to Okay, first, the "line break… by TheHutch
Technically, there's another workaround possibility: (ab)use frames.
* Add a horizontal frame after the measure where you want the section break functionality
* Add the section break to the frame; uncheck the show long names option
* Add a vertical frame
* Add another horizontal frame (start of the "next" system)
Now size the horizontal frames so the measures will approximately line up. I've also unchecked the show clef/key option for those frames, but that seems to bug out and keep them there; instead I've turned them invisible.
Then drag the vertical frame upwards to a negative size that makes the systems line up again.
In reply to Technically, there's another… by jeetee
Wow I genuinely never thought of that. Although the leftover mess for the next user would be much worse than just stray numbers.
One last time. A section break includes a line break. It is therefore impossible to reset the count without a line break. Dig?
In reply to Wow I genuinely never… by rkhirst
> "A section break includes a line break. It is therefore impossible to reset the count without a line break."
Correct.
In reply to Okay, first, the "line break… by TheHutch
Only a "system break" actually resets measure number.
No, but a section break does
In reply to Okay, first, the "line break… by TheHutch
I appreciate what you’re saying about the subtractions, and with my personal scores I have a much higher tolerance for workarounds because I will always know how it was done. But for shared scores, easy correction of count subtractions requires the inheritor to be unusually adept at MuseScore, and to read my mind.
Suppose I’m an average user. I inherit a score riddled with count subtractions. Not liking clutter, at first I turn off measure numbers. Production gets underway, and I start making cuts. Later in rehearsal I decide to turn on measure numbers.
Boom. Time bomb.
Now. Not only might I never find the source of the bizarre changes in count, even if I do figure out what has happened, the only way for me to fix it without combing through the work measure by measure is to secretly know in advance exactly which measures were altered.
In reply to I appreciate what you’re… by rkhirst
And I appreciate what you're saying about needing this functionality.
What I'm saying is that this would be something that you (the score's creator) would have to communicate explicitly to that average user. Because there is no other way to do what you want (at this time!), you would need to teach that average user how to deal with this issue. It's not a difficult thing to teach, or to understand. It's just not something that most "average users" would know. Once you explained what was going on, and how to deal with it, they would.
However, even if you didn't, recovering from the "time bomb" is not terribly difficult. Turn on measure numbers in every measure and see where they make SOME kind of jump. Fix them. A pain in the @$$, no doubt. But workarounds are always so.
Regardless, I suspect that jeetee's suggestion of using rehearsal marks is a much better way to do what you want, given the current state of MuseScore Studio. Alternatively, a brief, preferably unique, System Text describing what's going on at this point. Hmm, after a bit of thought, rehearsal marks are probably better.
In reply to And I appreciate what you're… by TheHutch
Well, certainly nothing is perfect, and an evaluation must be made. With workarounds, the issue is not the difficulty of any individual one, but the cumulative burden. And here I have made a personal, subjective decision that the added complexity of certain workarounds crosses a line that I don’t expect another person to cross with me.
But also in general I respectfully disagree that the accumulated problems for the next user of a well-edited score are few and transparent enough that one could reasonably expect to communicate to another human “here’s what you need to know about this score” in a few short notes. Or that -the information so communicated- one could reasonably expect another to accept the burden.
I am creating a library of free, editable scores for the working accompanist, so I weigh the effect of each decision on the next user at every step of my editing process. If you want to discuss this at length we should find a relevant thread.
In reply to Easiest way is to add a… by jeetee
For context, it is common in ballet scores to reset the measure count at various points within a movement, because the counts are shared with another performer - the dancer.
In a busy movement there may be multiple dancer entrances and exits, and short tags/ introductions for soloists. Adding and subtracting large numbers of measures is cumbersome, but making separate pieces of music for each stage event would be even sillier.
The solution is a rehearsal score with new measure numbers beginning on the “1” of each distinct choreographic section.
In reply to For context, it is common in… by rkhirst
Perhaps it might be more useful in such a scenario to use Rehearsal Markings for that purpose instead of measure numbers.
Have a look at https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/rehearsal-marks for the different options. You could for example use a Letter for each distinct choreographic section, and appended it with a relative number in there if you need multiple markers in that section.
In reply to Perhaps it might be more… by jeetee
This is my preferred approach. Left to my own devices, I use a combination of rehearsal markings and written choreographic cues. In most cases manipulating the measure count strikes me as a mistake.
However, ballet is a world where often there are a tiny number of reference scores available. When I make an editable reproduction of a standard reference score, I always preserve a stroke by stroke replica of the original, so that -when sharing with another musician- I can always give them an editable score that matches the pagination, measure layout and numbering systems of the original.
I recently failed at this with a rehearsal score for Paquita. There is no way to preserve the measure numbering without leaving a time bomb of subtracted counts sprinkled throughout, ready to bury the unwary user in nonsensical counts as soon as they start making performance cuts.
To the original question of the thread, there remains one final way to move measure “1”:
Exclude preceding measures from the count.
I use this when a piece begins with a very short introduction or vamp, and I want “1” to fall on the principal downbeat after the intro.