Automaic wrapping of system text

• Jun 3, 2019 - 08:38

Is there a way to get system text to wrap when it extends beyond the end of the system? I hit this situation when I have system text in a score, which occurs mid-system, but lands neat the end of a system when I generate parts. Usually this applies to longish instructions such as "poco a poco accel." or "un pochetimo meno mosso".

I don't think I can get ms to wrap such text to a next system or even with itself on the same system other than by hiding the text from the score and adding something specific to the part, then hiding that from the score. Is there a simpler way?


In reply to by Mizumaririn

unfortunately that does't help in general. Such text needs to be aligned over the note to which is applies. My only manual options seem to be to split the text over two lines or split it across two system. Both of these necessitate hiding those manipulations from the score and hiding the score text from the parts. I suppose another option is to force a system break in a place that doesn't cause the problem, but that's not always possible.

FWIW, my usual approach is to either add the system break before the measure in question, or sometimes I set the text to right aligned if I think I can get away with.

Just this morning I was thinking of something that could make an interesting option for the Add/Remove System Breaks tool. That would be an "intelligent" mode that looks for things like this but also looks at generally rebalancing the number of measures per system to not end up with an underfull last system. Really, there is so much more to it than that - often we want to get repeats and voltas to sit cleanly with respect to system breaks, sometimes it advantages to place rehearsal marks or key/time/tempo changes on new systems, etc. And then there is the issue of wanting to put page breaks in places where there are rests or at least "easy" passages. So this sort of thing might really be better suited as a plugin where it is more easily tweaked.

Anyhow, one way or another, yes, it would be nice to have some automation here.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

You didn't come out and say it, but it seems you implied it, included in the automation it would be really nice if text were automatically split when it encountered a margin so it will continue on the next system. I don't think this could currently be done in a plugin because, from a plugin, it would affect all occurrences of the text in all parts and the score.

In reply to by mike320

I didn't think about that option but remember you suggesting it at one point. This could actually be a separate thing as well, a command that doesn't touch the measure layout but looks for text sticking into the margin and wraps it as needed. But I suspect it would be unsatisfactory, if the text was long and extended almost completely into the margin, you'd get one a very tall text with one word per line. So probably better taken into account by the too that also inserts system breaks, it could first try wrapping the text and it that doesn't seem productive, then go with the system break.

But indeed, this would be problematic with respect to linked parts. So overall I'm not thinking this approach is as viable as just detecting the situations and adding a line break. Still, I recognize that doesn't always work either, you might have a whole sequence of measures where each one has an overhanging text.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

You misunderstood. I wasn't talking about word wrap inside the text box, I was talking about automatically breaking the text at a space or punctuation mark and continuing it on the next system. For example, in measure 23, which rests on system 4 hast the text "Poco a poco rit." assigned to it. The "a poco rit." is in the margin, so Musescore would automatically move the "a poco rit." to the next system and continue it on measure 24. I included punctuation marks in this because I've often seen ........ between words as well as dashes, and it makes perfect sense to break these texts after or in the middle of several dots or dashes. If the user doesn't like where it's broke, he can either move the text so it breaks somewhere else or use the current standard and put a system break before it.

In reply to by mike320

You're right, my mistake, I misunderstood. That's definitely an interesting suggestion too, and would also have to be done during layout. Unfortunately these sort of things are easier said than done, it's not unlike the problem with cross-measure beaming cross system breaks some of the other things we'd like to be able to do differently at start of system versus elsewhere that the current architecture doesn't easily allow. So that's one to consider for whenever larger architectural changes happen. But the other things I was talking about could potentially be done with what we have now.

In reply to by mike320

I appreciate the issue is easily stated but generic solutions far more difficult to specify and implement. And agree automatic placement is much better in 3.1 - though I do find that I need to adjust a few slurs that appear excessively parabolic in shape by having with automatic placement turned off.

Right justification is fine as long as the overlap to the preceding bar is small. I think I'll continue to work these things manually.

In reply to by richardm999

Feel free to start a new thread with examples of the too-curved slurs. There are a number of cases where we have to choose between a relatively flat slur that is too high above the end points, a too curved slur that looks silly, or just allowing collisions, which currently we don't do. I'm thinking right now it might be worthwhile to consider the latter to in the case of things like key signatures, but I'm not sure.

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