Grace note distance
In the Measure section of the General Style dialog, I can't seem to find a "Grace note to note distance" setting. Additionally, when a grace note is selected, the "Trailing space" setting in the Inspector is disabled. How can I adjust the distance between grace notes and notes?
Comments
Inspector/Chord/Horizontal offset?
In reply to Inspector/Chord/Horizontal by Shoichi
I know I can move its position, but I'd prefer a proportional setting, rather than an absolute position that would be messed up with a layout change (and undone by a "Reset" command).
I believe the distance is simply the regular minimum note distance setting from Style / General / Measure. Distance *between* grace notes is the same but scaled by the grace note size. If this is for some reason not what you want, and changing the minimum note distance doesn't work well (it will have a ripple effect), then overriding the offset in Inspector should be the way to go. It shouldn't be fragile, there is nothing to be proportional to, if that makes sense. Which is to say - if the minimum note distance is 0.5sp, the grace notes are always 0.5sp from the main note, and changing the offset to -0.25sp will always make it exactly 0.75sp total, etc.
In reply to I believe the distance is by Marc Sabatella
Okay, thanks. I'm not sure what I was thinking in terms of relative vs. absolute spacing—whatever it was, it seemed to make sense at the time, but it now seems fairly ridiculous. I still wish it was possible to adjust a grace note's trailing space (or that adjusting the leading space of a note following a grace note would move them closer together), but horizontal offset will serve well enough.
In reply to Okay, thanks. I'm not sure by Isaac Weiss
In version 1.3. you could indeed adjust the tailing and leading space of grace notes. I am not missing the feature, I rarely used it anyway.
(BTW if all else fails they can be manually moved (double click and move with the arrow keys), but of course only at the very end of the clean up, when the measures won't stretch out or contract again.)
But now (with 2.0.2) I am observing that the distance between grace notes (if two or more are together in a turn or something) is not always the same. Sometimes they are farer apart as if the system expected an accidental which however is not necessary. Also if the same turn appears in two or more staffs at the same location they don't always line up with each other. I am ignoring this, it is too minor to worry about but I thought I'd mention it in this context.
In reply to In version 1.3. you could by azumbrunn
FWIW, trailing & leading space are attributes of the *segment*, not the note. Meaning, the entire vertical slice of music at that time position, including notes on other staves. In 1.3, grace notes got their own segment (with the same time position as the main note, I guess). In 2.0, the grace notes are attached to the main note (actually chord) and are not in segments of their own. I think this allows for more flexible layout possibilities in the face of multiple staves (or multiple voices), but it does mean you will need to use leading space on the main note (plus an offset on the grace note) rather than trailing on the grace note to change the space between them if you want to keep the space between the grace note and *previous* note constant.
In principle, it's easy enough to make the space between grace note & main note a style setting; feel free to file a feature request.
In reply to In version 1.3. you could by azumbrunn
Space between grace notes is indeed not always the same - we now correctly account for both accidentals and ledger lines. Should be much better than before. If you are encountering some specific case where you think it is not correct, please post the specific score.
As for grace notes not aligning between staves, this is indeed one of the improvements made possible by the new implementation. Different staves might have different spacing considerations (eg, more grace on one staff than another, or different hook configurations, or ledger lines or accidentals that appear on one staff but not the other, etc), and MuseScore now lays out each staff more independently.
I am adding this here as it fits the topic to perfection. Can't one improve the appearance of groups of grace notes over present status? Example below. In printed music I checked I don't find different spacing when ledger lines are involved and I don't find uneven spacing when accidentals are necessary.
No need to hurry, just a suggestion for the future.
In reply to I am adding this here as it by azumbrunn
Not sure what editions you are seeing that fail to account for ledger lines in the spacing of notes (grace or otherwise), but it's standard practice, and failing to do so would normally lead to collisions between ledger lines or else non-optimal spacing. Ditto with accidentals. If some editor added enough space for ledger lines or accidentals even when unecessary, then you end up with too much space overall.
In reply to Not sure what editions you by Marc Sabatella
The picture here is from a score (vln1 and 2 in octaves). Wouldn't it also be standard practice to spread out the grace notes in the lower octave to match the ones above? It really looks weird on the score (weirder than in the magnification that somehow occurred when I posted the picture).
The example I had quick access to was a Peters edition of Mazas etudes (but the picture above looks weird and totally new to me, so I am quite confident I haven't seen anything this obvious so far). They achieve approximate equality of ledger-lined and on staff grace note groups by making the ledger lines very much shorter than Musescore does (the ones that cross the notes sometimes stick out only on the "open" side). At the same time they spread out the on staff groups to match. I have been playing from this edition for decades and can assure you that there are no readability problems. Accidentals do widen the groups a bit even there, but they keep them evenly spaced within the group. I am actually quite sure I have seen ledger lines connected in situations like this--against the rules apparently, but by no means difficult to read.
If you look at the bottom line in the example the spacing is so extreme that it suggests the last note to be a quaver rather than a semiquaver--unusual but not unheard of in such ornaments. By contrast in the upper line the unevenness is still there but you don't notice it when playing.
Here is what one could do:
- shorten the ledger lines for groups of notes (also in semiquaver runs that emerge above or below the staff and suddenly get a wider spacing).
- reduce the space between accidentals and the preceding note; it does not have to be larger than the one to the following note.
- align grace note groups in multi staff situations to avoid the incongruity above.
In reply to The picture here is from a by azumbrunn
Shorterning ledger lines is indeed one way of addressing that one particular aspect of this. And yes, we could reduce the space before an accidental. But this doesn't change the general fact: it is a fallacy to expect things that really do take up space (eg, ledger lines and accidentals) to not affect spacing. That is, most professional editions do not force all notes of given duration to have the same spacing regardless of what markings are attached. If there are four sixteenths with an accidental on the third, then three will be more more space between the second and third than between the first and second or third and fourth in pretty much any edition. Again, this is just as true for regular notes as grace notes.
The examples in Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars" - widely considered the most definitive resources on the subject of music engraving around - are quite clear about this, and they show numerous cases where accidentals or ledger lines between grace notes affects the spacing. I would agree shortening ledger lines or reducing space before accidentals would be an option as well and would make the spacing *less* inconsistent, but inconistent spacing is perfectly normal when it is more space-efficient.
BTW: it's possible the new layout spacing algorithms under development (see another current thread) might address some of this. In any case, it's probably best to wait until that is in place (might be a while) before worrying about tweaks like these, as they would probably have to be reimplemented anyhow for the new layout.