Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Hello again,

I have a tune which in part A has 1. & 2. repeat endings. NC gives each of these a separate measure number. In several of the sheet music books I have, this does not happen - each is just considered to be a different rendition of the same measure, and therefore given the same measure number.

I have included the .not file as well as a jpeg of the tune from my book.

Looking forward to 2.6!

Best wishes,
Iain

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Yikes, Sorry about the size of the image! :eek:

Following up on the above, I now cannot change the numbers of bars per line in the Layout section. I keep getting a red message in the bottom RH corner "Command is unexpectedly complex". This happens even if I try to reset the layout back to default (Def). Tried closing the file and restarting the program, even rebooting but still the same message.

I hope you can help.

Kind regards,
Iain

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Hi Iain,

Since Composer also performs the measures (rather than just drawing them to look nice), it needs some way of telling those measure 9s apart, and sequential numbering is just easiest for Composer and for the user that may want to manipulate the repetition instructions. I have seen measure numbering like you're showing here. But I've also seen published measure numbering in sequential numbers (like Composer currently does.) I'll consult my notation standards guru ;)

I've confirmed the same problem on opening your attached file here. Was there a point previously where you could use the Layout/Page Layout/Specify number of bars per system? If so, you may have a copy of that file in your Autosave archive. It would be really helpful (ie save me lots of time ;) ) if you do have such a copy that allows you to use the Specify command. Then I can compare them to hopefully figure out the problem.

Thanks!
Sherry

This is the error message:
Attachment 174

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Thanks Sherry. :)

Yes, that was the message I got.

Here is a previous auto-save version that doesn't seem to have the problem. But note that in this version the measure numbers start at 1 so the problem seems to have occurred after making the starting measure (anacrusis) bar 0 as per my book. I hope this helps.

Thanks for the quick replies - great forum this.

Iain

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Well I've used a recovery file with measure numbers starting at 1 again. But no way can I change the score so that line 3 has 4 bars for measures 10-13, and so on. It's bizarre - if I try to set it in the dialog I end up with line 3 joining on to the line above so I end up with a new line 2 with 9 or 10 bars in it! I'm really confused about what's happening here.

I notice also that all the notation below line 3 has none of the system padlock symbols on it.

I really would like to have this laid out properly so I hope you can help.

P.S. It won't play at all either (waited several minutes).

Cheers,
Iain

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Sorry, meant to post the file.

Here it is...

Iain

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Hi Iain,

Which dialog are you referring to here? I've just opened the file and used the "Insert system break" to insert system (line) breaks at measures 10 and 14 successfully. Please let me know which dialog (I suspect the "Specify number of bars" dialog) it is.

Since you have 5 bars per system in the first two systems (lines), and they are locked, you'll need to use the manual "Insert system break" to set the next line at 4 bars. Composer should behave better for you and let you set the barlines either way (manually, or via the dialog). Do let me know how you were trying to do it, so I can make a good recommendation for having Composer behave better.

I was not able to reproduce this problem. It played beautifully for me here :) Are there any particular steps that you can take to make it not play? I do see a problem that it doesn't properly "stop" at the end of the file for more than a few seconds, and I will report that problem. Is that related to the problem you were experiencing?

ttfn,
Sherry

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

p.s. And here's the file that I made the formatting change to - hopefully it's the right way :)

ttfn,
Sherry


Attachment 179

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Yes it was indeed the "Specify number of bars" dialog but I see there's a steeper learning curve here for me than I thought. :o Systems as such are new to me so I had never tried to use the "Insert System Break" command. I'm not sure what the padlock symbols are meant to represent either so I will have to scan the manual a bit more I guess.

Thanks so much for doing that - much appreciated. :D

Iain

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Well you've worked your magic again Sherry because it plays now! :) Before when I hit the "Play" arrow (cursor at the start) nothing happened. Maybe it's just my slow old computer!? :(

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Hi Iain,

The padlocks are to indicate (depending on which direction the arrow goes) that a particular measure is locked to a previous measure and should stay with that measure either on the same system (left arrow) or the same page (up arrow). I'm recommending that using the "Specify number of bars" command should allow you to either keep existing locks (such as you had) and operate on the rest of the score, or it should allow you to over ride already made changes and set the whole score to the designated number per system. Task 2169.

For playback, there is a slight chance that if you have an older machine and Composer was in the middle of an autosave, that it may not have begun playback immediately. That would be sort of the equivalent of hitting a gnat with a pea shooter from a dozen yards - not probable, but possible ;)

If the problem arises again, please let me know.

ttfn,
Sherry

Re: Measure Numbers for Repeat Staff Endings
 

Thanks so much Sherry for your help.

The picture is much clearer now.

Iain