Distances before the first note

• May 25, 2013 - 21:59
S5 - Suggestion

For those who have 'Behind Bars', you may see that page 42 features recommendations for distances before the first note - they are measured in stave spaces.

Here is a test suite using scores produced in 1.3:

with clef only = 2 1/2
with clef only (with one accidental) = 1 1/2
with clef only (with more accidentals) = 1

with key signature = 2 1/2
with key signature (with one accidental) = 1 1/2
with key signature (with more accidentals) = 1

with time signature = 2
with time signature (with one accidental) = 1
with time signature (with more accidentals) = 1

Using MuseScore 2.0 Nightly Build (c7323dd) - Mac 10.7.5.


Those are fine recommendations, but those are subjective personal opinions. I'd need to see more compelling evidence that there is a problem with the numbers we use.

BTW, it would not be feasible for us to have different spacing depending on the number of accidentals in the first note. That's something one would need to adjust for manually if one thought bit of personal advice from Gould was worth following. Implementing a feature where we provide yet more style options to control this sort of thing could be possible some day.

FWIW, here is an updated test score created using the latest 2.0 development build (so style settings are honored using current defaults, not whatever compatibility mode we implement for imported scores). Because we have no concept of setting different depending on *number* of accidentals (just *presence/absence*), I show only the six relevant for us.

Our spacing is notably tighter than hers for the no accidental case after a clef or time signature. Our defaults seem within range of historical norms. On the tighter end of that range, but that's preferable as far as I am concerned.

Attachment Size
initial-space.mscz 1.57 KB

It would be good to have a snapshot of the corresponding Elaine Gould page. I unfortunately don't have it, and so can't compare here.
Also, since Elaine Gould's book has kinda become the 'de facto" standard, should this be looked at again?