6/8, 9/8, 12/8 Rest Creation
Hi everyone,
I've been using Musescore for a year and a half now and have really been impressed with how much has been done and all of its capabilities. I arrange music for my a cappella group, and I just noticed something with a score I'm writing in 6/8. When I type in (or click) an eighth note, the rest of the measure automatically recalculates the rests to fill it in appropriately. However, in 6/8 time, it fills it with an eighth rest and a half rest. In 6/8 time, there should be two "big" beats, each a dotted quarter note in length. I was wondering if someone can make it so the rest automatically fill in like that. I've attached a picture to clarify what I mean. The top line is how it currently fills in, the bottom is how it should. Thanks!
P.s. I'm using Musescore 2, I just changed the colors.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 6-8 Time Example.png | 3.02 KB |
Comments
I agree. :)
FWIW the beam grouping can get configured in via the master palette's time signature dialog. Maybe that could get extended to configure rests too.
In reply to FWIW the beam grouping can by Jojo-Schmitz
That's a good idea, although the reules for rests actually differ from the rules for beaming. So it would probably need to be a separate dialog. Realistically, it's probably overkill; we should just do a better job of picking defaults. I think there has been a desire to avoid too miuch time-signature-specific code - too much trying to guess what constitutes a "beat". But realistically, we do this enough places right now that maybe we should give up worrying about it. In fact, we could even add a function isCompound() to the time signature class, just to make sure we calculate it consistently. I have generally used something like, if denominator >= 8 && numerator % 3 == 0.
In reply to That's a good idea, although by Marc Sabatella
Is that from a specific code you've tried using or is that theory on how it could be done? While the rules may be different than those for beaming, if a code is developed for this, that would be a good place to put a configuration editor. Thanks for the input!
In reply to Is that from a specific code by Dsinclair9132
Well, I'm speaking kind of generall,y but the dialog that allows you to specify beaming doesn't have sufficient information to help that much with rests. For instance, it might tell you in 6/8 to beam in two groups of three - thus telling that you need to show little beat 4. But it doesn't tell you if the first big beat should be written as a single dotted quarter rest, a quarter rest followed by an eighth, or an eighth follow by a quarter. So we'd have to hard code those rules anyhow - unless we devised a *new* dialog for specifying this, which again I think is overkill.
In reply to FWIW the beam grouping can by Jojo-Schmitz
That's a pretty cool feature I didn't find before. Thanks for pointing it out.
I agree with this, it would be a consistent saving of time! I found myself splitting and recomposing rests very often to give them a readable look.
In reply to I agree with this, it would by Fabrizio Ferrigno
It seems like a very basic matter - and therefore kind of inexplicable that it should have been leapfrogged over when 2.0 is so advanced in so many other functionalities.
I'm sure most of us have just gotten used to this peculiarity in compound meter, but that doesn't mean it's not tedious. If it can be fixed, it should be ASAP in my opinion.
In reply to It seems like a very basic by [DELETED] 448831
I have suffered this, often, too. Entering music in compound meter involves very tedious rest decomposition and recomposition with ugly leftovers if you're not thorough. I for one have not gotten used to it.
In reply to I have suffered this, often, by [DELETED] 1831606
Such a violation of a fundamental principle of music notation also has the unfortunate consequence of enabling, encouraging and perpetuating a fundamental error among neophytes who don't know or understand why it's incorrect.
In reply to I agree with this, it would by Fabrizio Ferrigno
Issue has been filled in March ;)
https://musescore.org/en/node/4867
In reply to Issue has been filled in by Zynette
March 2010!
#4867: Rests in measures should be grouped according to time signature
In reply to Issue has been filled in by Zynette
Thanks for pointing me towards this! Too bad that thread hasn't really gone anywhere in all this time. :/
In reply to I agree with this, it would by Fabrizio Ferrigno
I guess I don't see this as that big an issue since I rately depend on MuseScore to enter rests for me. I enter my own notes pneara time, selecting duration for each, so I expect to enter my own rests too in the same manner. I don't think of these as separate activities. That said, sure, it would be a nice enhancement some day.
In reply to I guess I don't see this as by Marc Sabatella
It can save a little time if you enter only one note in a measure and let MuseScore fill in the rests: Just enter the note and Ctrl+Right Arrow to the next measure. If you enter notes with the mouse (as many beginners do) having MuseScore automatically fill in the rests correctly saves a a greater about of time. It is also nice to be able to trust MuseScore to do the right thing rather than check every measure for those types of mistakes.
As you said, not strictly necessary, but definitely nice to have.
In reply to It can save a little time if by David Bolton
Agreed. See my first repsonse in this thread: https://musescore.org/en/node/57201#comment-264201. I get the feeling there have been conscious choices in the past to avoid doing things in a meter-specific manner. But we've been gradually letting go of that reluctance, and I think this would be a fine next step.