A couple of requests regarding tuplets

• Feb 26, 2017 - 05:25

Firstly, it'd be nice if the numbers over tuplets disappeared if you've used a certain number of them in a pattern. Like, in most scores, they tend to only show the number over the first two tuplets and then it doesn't show up anymore for the rest of the piece unless the pattern is broken and a new theme is presented.

Secondly, it'd be cool if there was a way to change the default for how certain tuplets are bracketed

Attached is an example of the problems I'd like to be addressed. I left some notes in the example mscz as well.

Attachment Size
tupletfeaturerequestexamples.mscz 7.86 KB


So would you like something, as in Inspector,


in the Style/General/Tuplets window like: Numbers/Brackets only in the measures 1-X?

In reply to by Shoichi

That won't work on staff properties because in a score the violin might play 20 measures of triplets then 20 measures of melody then a different set of triplets. Each of those sets of triplets would have the first few with numbers and, if needed, brackets.

Programming this would be nightmarish I believe, trying it figure out if there are enough tuplets in a row to hide the ensuing tuplets and then resume them later.

For a user, like me, it's not difficult to select the range of notes with the hidden tuplets, right click, select the same elements in selection then either use V or the inspector.

I like automation, but I'd rather have the programmers working on other features that are requested more often.

In reply to by mike320

I concur. It isn't even always the first two triplets that need to show the numbers; it depends on context. If you have a total of three triplets it looks kind of silly not to have the 3 on the third, doesn't it? On the other hand if it is all triplets all the time and the music isn't for beginners anyway there is no need for any 3s at all; it is blindingly obvious that they are triplets. Moreover any regularly repeating pattern could be a candidate for not putting all the labels on the tuplets even if it is mixed tuplet/non tuplet. image.png
As to the brackets I agree with the initial post that they are ugly (but we seem to be in the minority). The key would be to come up with a design that is clearly different from a slur and from a tie and is still pretty. I guess more people than the two of us have thought about this unsuccessfully and have given up.

In reply to by azumbrunn

I don't think MuseScore should be in the business of inventing new forms of music notation. Brackets are the standard and have been for at least a century, so that's what we do. I do agree that we should also provide the option to do the curved lines that were standard among some publishers in previous centuries.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Are you sure about "at least a century"? I have a fair collection of sheet music from all ages, have played all of it at some time or other and I don't recall seeing those brackets even once. And they do stand out--looking entirely foreign in the environment of the other signs you see there. I'd like to see an example from say 1920...

Not having a better proposal though I agree: The brackets need to stay.

I don't like the curved lines from older times at all. I have endured lengthy debates in rehearsals about whether they need to be played legato or not. Entirely pointless. Though maybe if they are just used on "incomplete" tuplets it's not a major problem.

In reply to by mike320

Nightmarish, yes. Impossible, no. At best it'd be as nightmarish as coding the smart layout for MS3. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of code whatsoever, so I can't write up the code. If I could, I wouldn't have made this thread. But it can be done, and it'd be nice if MS was more automated.

In reply to by izzychns

As far as I can tell, it's not about it being complicated to code - it's not. It's about the fact that there is almost no way a simple option like this would address enough real world cases to be worth the trouble. I think the examples already discussed here show why this is true - there are just too many variables involved. It's almost never so simple as saying you want all tuplets after the first two to not display the number. Only you can possibly know which ones should display the numebr and which should not. If you're thinking you want the majority to *not* show the number, then set your defaults that way and override the ones where you *do* want the number. Or vice versa. But it's not often turn out to be something you could characterize with a simple "first X tuplets show number, others don't".

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

The problem is that there is no way to default how many tuplets should show a number. I do agree that this doesnt really provide enough for real world examples, but there should be a way to default this regardless because atm there isn't. It makes the scores look incredibly tacky when every tuplet has a number over it by default and theres no way to override it. You could simply select the measures where the tuplets are used, yes, but that's tedious. perhaps this shouldnt be an actual feature but a plugin.

In reply to by izzychns

While there is no option to turn off all the tuplet brackets and numbers by default (that I can find), you can right click and select all similar items and either hide them (recommended) or turn them off in the inspector. You would then need to go back and unhide those you want to see. This should be easy to do while you are going back through the score to ensure dynamics aren't hidden under notes and so forth.

In reply to by izzychns

I initially dismissed the idea of a plugin, but after some thought one that works similar to TempoChanges would not be too difficult for someone who knows how to program.

If you can access the tuplet from a plug in a window similar to TempoChanges could show up and ask how many to keep visible at the beginning. It would then use the inspector and set both brackets and number to nothing.

In reply to by izzychns

I agree with Mike320 though: If you follow his suggested work flow and make the number invisible just prior to proofreading you have to do it just once. This is not all that tedious is it?

Making a few labels visible afterwards is a piece of cake. And no matter how automated the system will become you'll always have to look at your score through a human eye to make sure everything looks ok and is easily readable (plus arrange for easy page turns). In that process you'll fix those little things and make those few tuplet labels visible again.

I am not saying it would't be nice to have this task automated but that there are plenty of more important automations still pending and that this one ought to be in the back of the queue.

In reply to by izzychns

The problem, again, is that there would in real life no way to define a simple "make X tuplets have numbers" and expect good results to happen. There is simply no substitute for making the decision yourself, because every piece is different. Any sim[p;listic algoerithm that bnlindly just made the first X tuplets have numbers would produce terrible results, and it would be that much harder than it already is to clean up the resulting mess.

Again, it is trivially easy - not tedious at all - to suppress numbers for all tuplets at once, or just selected ones. That's the beauty of the Inspector - you *don't* have to to do it one at at a time. If you think "most" tuplets will be better off with no number, it is trivially simple to suppress them all at once, then go back and add them wherever you subjectively feel would be useful (again, trivially easy to do this for as many at once as you like).

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.