Multimeasure rest numbers position
Is there any option to change Multimeasure rest numbers to be under stave, not above?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Is there any option to change Multimeasure rest numbers to be under stave, not above?
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
AFAIK no
Do you have examples in literature that use this?
In reply to AFAIK no Do you have examples by Jojo-Schmitz
Sure, here you are: http://i.imgur.com/ta55Ugs.jpg
In reply to Sure, here you are: by kujaw
That looks to be very non-standard, although FWIW, it's kind of clever, as it makes for fewer collisions with text above the staff. I don't know if that style was common once, but I don't think it is now.
Wel also don't support those old-style symbols used to indicate 2-bar & 4-bar rests. That would be nice to support at some point, perhaps.
In reply to That looks to be very by Marc Sabatella
That's exactly why I want change position of these numbers - to avoid collision with tempo markings above the staff.
These old-style symbols are maxima and longa rests (or sth like that, dunno english translation). Personally I think they look extraordinary but they're not necessary for me, I prefer just multimeasure rests.
In reply to That's exactly why I want by kujaw
The downside of the numbers below the staff though, is that musicians today will not be auccstomed to seeing this. So unfortunately, rather than increase readability, trying to emulate that style will probably be counterproductive. Not saying we shouldn't support it if it can be shown that this is not an isolated example that it truly is/was a common standard still worth emulating today, but I personally would be reluctant to use any notation that musicians are not accustomed to seeing.
In reply to The downside of the numbers by Marc Sabatella
I really like this. I can't believe that a musician expert enough to understand MM rests would have trouble with this, and the added benefits are instantly obvious.
In reply to I really like this. I can't by xavierjazz
Indeed, it seems a no-brainer in highsight, not sure why this was not standardized upon back in the day. But I have learned through painful experience over and over that any time you deviate from what people are accustomed to seeing, you invite confusion. I could totally see a musician simply not seeing the number - especially if playing a difficult passage and not being able to look ahead - and mistaking the symbol for a single measure rest and thus coming in too soon. Or else taking just long enough to figure it out at a fast tempo that they lose their count and miss their entrance. I've wasted too much time in rehearsal due to confusions over non-standard notation, or had to deal with mistakes / train wrecks on gigs in which the musicians were sightreading, to want to take this risk personally. That's my opinion, anyhow.
Also, as they say, "standard is better than better". But if this truly was a standard at one time, it is potentially worth supporting. At the very least, we could support making the number invisible, so you could add your own number below manually. Or allow the number to be set by a text style, so you could choose the position as for any other type of text. That's even better, actually.
In reply to Indeed, it seems a no-brainer by Marc Sabatella
Don't take me wrong, but... if a musician has trouble with such thing he should educate himself and have some more practice. For me (also musician) it's no difference whether these numbers are above or under the staff. Secondly, they are rests, multimeasure rests so it's hard to miss them. It is not a major change in notation so there's no need for musician to stare at this sheet with his eyes and mouth wide open thinking "wtf is that?". Thirdly... as a musician you HAVE TO be prepared for any various situation, to be flexible.
I think that we should have a choice. The solution you wrote in last phrase should work the best, I think: "allow the number to be set by a text style, so you could choose the position as for any other type of text. That's even better, actually".
In reply to Don't take me wrong, but... by kujaw
I'm not talking about mouth wide open total confusion. I'm talking about the momentary break in concentration that often makes the difference when sightreading complex music that is just barely at the edge of one's ability in the first place. If you've never worked with students musicians or tried to have very complex charts sight read by professionals in a dark jazz club, great - but I'm just telling you my concerns based on my experience. It's the same with, same courtesy accidentals. Either too few or too many easily makes a difference. So do things like, decisions on eighth note beaming. Details really do matter if you want to maximize chance of success and avoid those split second lapses in concentration.
Anyhow, I think the style solution would be good. Feel free to submit an official feature request in the issue tracker or this idea will get lost for sure.
In reply to I'm not talking about mouth by Marc Sabatella
I think that while in many cases, Marc's worries about confusion may be valid, this is an exception. It's a rest. There's at least a moment there to process. :)