Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Wrong measure-numbers after repeat (Read 4560 times) previous topic - next topic

Wrong measure-numbers after repeat

There's a little problem I encountered concerning
measure-numbering. The conventions of music-publishing
dictate that an up-beat (a first measure that has a shorter
duration than a normal full-length measure) shouldn't get a
number assigned to it. In NoteWorthy Composer you can deal
with this situation by letting the measure-numbering start
at zero (page setup, options, measure start = 0).
This works fine as long as there are no repeats in the
movement. The section that comes after a repeat is again
bound to start with an incomplete measure that should not
get it's own number. NoteWorthy, however, does assign a
number to it, so after a repeat in a movement that starts
with an up-beat all the measure-numbers are one too high.
The only possible work-around I can think of is splitting
the movement in two files, which enables you to manually set
the measure-start for the second section.
Not a very elegant solution!
Has anybody got a useful suggestion on the subject?

Re: Wrong measure-numbers after repeat

Reply #1 –
I'm not sure I understand completely.
Do you have another anacrusis bar midway through the piece?
Like does the music stop and restart?
Or does the flow continue to the next movement.
If you pad this with rests the bar would count.
When you say repeat do you mean using repeat symbols?
In which case the anacrusis!! would be in a first ending or have I got this wrong?

Re: Wrong measure-numbers after repeat

Reply #2 –
I think I understand the problem because I experienced the
same. The problem is that a "decorated bar line" is considered
to separate two measures, even if it is inserted in the
middle of a single measure. Thus a measure with a "master
repeat open" or "master repeat close" in the middle of it
will be considered to be *two* measures instead of one.

I think it is rather difficult to fix: it would require
to count the number of beats before and after the repeat
bar. For instance, if we are at 3/4:
1) If there are 3 beats before and 3 beats after, then
count 2 measures.
2) If there are 1 beat before and 2 beats after, or the
inverse, then count one measure.
3) If there are 2 beats before and two beats after... ahem...
this is very bothering!

Maybe the better fix would be to add new styles of decorated
bar lines:
- ones that count as an actual measure separator;
- other that can be inserted in one measure without
incrementing the bar count.

What do you think of this, Eric ?

Re: Wrong measure-numbers after repeat

Reply #3 –
We will give consideration to this issue as we plan future development. I cannot, however, guarantee anything at this time.

Re: Wrong measure-numbers after repeat

Reply #4 –
Thanks to Olivier Miakinen for explaining my measure-
numbering problem. That's exactly what I meant! I posted an
example to the NoteWorthy newsgroup as an illustration.

I do agree with Olivier Makinen that it would be difficult
to fix the problem in a 100 % watertight way.
May I suggest a simple fix that should work fine for music
that sticks to the traditional rules of composition:

If measure-start is set to zero, don't increment
the measure-number on a master-repeat.

What's your opinion?