Improved dynamic-changing
Let's say, you got a note with a p (piano), but you want it to be an f (forte / fortissimo).
In my opinion, it would be a good addition to add this possible workflow:
- Click on p to mark it.
- Click on the f to replace the p with it.
This seems like a really easy way to change markings, which requires at least one click less than the current most efficient method (at least to my knowledge):
- Click on p to mark it.
- Delete the p
- Click on the f to insert it.
Comments
I'm trying to think of situations where I could select something and then type over it, other than text. I'm not sure dynamic markings qualify as text.
In reply to I'm trying to think of… by bobjp
It is a form text. You can double click it and edit it. You can thus even retype it as f; but it would be a text change only, not a functional one that also affects the velocity set by that marking.
In reply to I'm trying to think of… by bobjp
Its seems like my description of the intended functionality was lacking.
What I meant is not to type [f] but to
1. Select p
2. Click on f in the palette or use a keyboard-shortcut to insert a proper f.
I agree, just typing "f" without going into any editing mode would be a uncommon way of trying this out. Though it sounds interesting.
In reply to Its seems like my… by Mraco_o
I agree that this should be possible and actually the default. No one wants both a p and an f on the same note. It took a long time to convince them that pasting a dynamic should overwrite an existing one.
In reply to I agree that this should be… by mike320
If people agree that such a change would be optimal... is it enough to just leave it here in the forum or should one create a bug to make sure it's not buried under other topics?
In reply to If people agree that such a… by Mraco_o
Enter it as a S5-Suggestion in https://musescore.org/en/node/add/project_issue?pid=1236. I'm not aware of such a suggestion.
This is one of the usability issues pointed out by Tantacrul which I believe is planned to be addressed in MS4.
In reply to This is one of the usability… by jeetee
Amazing, he seems to be doing a good job :)
Two things:
- Crescendo and Decrescendo/Dim.
- ">" above the note and > with a dot (This one is really interesting and it almost seems like a good idea to let users edit its parts individually: let them insert a >, then let them insert the dot, in which case it should turn into the "> with dot" -symbol
- Voltas
- 8va, 8vb
- Pedal markings for the piano
- Different arpeggios
Also, is this the first Musescore where Tantacrul has his fingers involved? I noticed that as of v.3.5, many of his YT-video's suggestions still haven't been implemented.
In reply to Amazing, he seems to be… by Mraco_o
There has been no MS4 release date announced or really discussed. I've heard sometime next summer but that's quite vague and unofficial.
The > with a dot symbol causes problems for musicxml export. This is very important to some users so I hope they don't change that. They can find ways to make it easier to work with both though.
With the exception of the 8va, 8vb being different in parts than the main score, that would be chaotic and lead to problems with communication between a conductor and musician. If you really want to shoot yourself in the foot that way you can make the unwanted items invisible and insert new ones and live with the playback implications.
As for the video. I don't expect anyone to promise that everything Tantacrul mentioned will ever be implemented but he has a lot of say about the future of MuseScore and is working to gradually introduce his suggested improvements. These have actually been gradually being introduced since about 3.2. You will see a lot of these improvements in 3.6 when it comes out.
In reply to There has been no MS4… by mike320
> With the exception of the 8va, 8vb being different in parts than the main score, that would be chaotic and lead to problems with communication between a conductor and musician. If you really want to shoot yourself in the foot that way you can make the unwanted items invisible and insert new ones and live with the playback implications.
I'm confused... I think, i didn't quite bring my point across. What did you understand that I was suggesting?
> You will see a lot of these improvements in 3.6 when it comes out.
Looking forward to it! :)
In reply to > With the exception of the… by Mraco_o
It sounds like you were suggesting that things like arpeggios and voltas in parts be independent from the main score so you can change them in the parts without affecting the score.
This would be chaotic. The conductor expects the harp to play an arpeggio and the harpist plays a chord because that's what the pieces of paper in front of them say. Worse, of the (example) 23 parts in the orchestra, 18 have volta 1 on measures 40-43 while 5 parts show the volta on measures 42-43.
In reply to It sounds like you were… by mike320
Oh, nononononono
Here's what I meant:
Remember this post?
1. Select p
2. Click on f in the palette or use a keyboard-shortcut to insert a proper f.
I wanted the same thing, but also applying that mechanic to other symbols/text:
Like this:
1. Select crescendo
2. Click on dececrescendo in the palette or use a keyboard-shortcut to insert a proper dececrescendo.
or this:
I wanted this (talking about both, symbols and text:
1. Select 8va
2. Click on 8vb in the palette or use a keyboard-shortcut to insert a proper 8vb.
or this:
I wanted this (talking about both, symbols and text:
1. Select downwards-arpeggio
2. Click on upwards-arpeggio in the palette or use a keyboard-shortcut to insert a proper upwards-arpeggio.
Did that make more sense?
In reply to Oh, nononononono Here's what… by Mraco_o
Yes, that makes sense. So a more generic suggestion than just the dynamics would be called for. Make it for anything that you would never see duplicated on a note. In another place you mentioned putting a < and dot on a note so something like that would not be affected by this.
In reply to Yes, that makes sense. So a… by mike320
There you go: #311128: Improvement to Changing of Elements
I wasn't 100% sure how to word it, but i did my best.
In reply to There you go: #311128:… by Mraco_o
Looks good to me. I think it's clear and you even entered the issue link in this post properly so it automatically links back to here in "What links to here" secion.
In reply to There you go: #311128:… by Mraco_o
I like those ideas very much! Hoping they make it to the next version. I learned today how messy it is to type a dynamic on top of another one to try to change it (like pp instead of p). You end up with both a pp and a p, and then you have to delete both of them and start over. The change you suggest would certainly make that more intuitive.
In reply to I like those ideas very much… by asotuba@gmail.com
I think what bothers me about all this is the is the list of inconsistences that will result.
I don't think there is anything that you can select and replace by retyping. Everything I can think of requires at least three clicks or keystrokes. Notes and lyrics can require even more.
You would have to make this work for any procedure created by a palette. Otherwise you have to remember which ones work that way and which ones don't. As it is I don't have any problem remembering consistent pattern of select, delete, re-enter. There are things I would change about MuseScore that are way more important.
In reply to I think what bothers me… by bobjp
What you would need to remember is things like a note never has 2 dynamic marks on it. A note can have a several accents and ornaments on it all at the same time. Lyrics are different because you can have almost as many verses as you want on a note and there is a process to replace rather than add to a lyric. The suggestion in the issue tracker isn't to allow retyping a dynamic, but rather have a palette entry replace an existing dynamic. Other things included would be logical as well. You can't have a mordent, turn and trill on the same note. Entering one should replace the other.
In reply to What you would need to… by mike320
I'm not saying this shouldn't be implemented. It probably should. Only that I can't remember ever running into this situation. I honestly never saw the current method of changing dynamics as being a problem before all this came up. This is already doable with clefs, but not metronome markings. I'd rather be able to select a metronome marking and be able to retype directly. Because metronome marks are added from the palette, will they be simplified also?
In reply to I'm not saying this shouldn… by bobjp
I think this should apply to metronome marks as well. I suggest that you make a comment in the suggestion to add your support and mention that metronome marks should be one per chord also. In the case of metronome marks, I don't think they're actually attached to a note but rather a spot in the measure (called a tick) but no matter where they are attached it's the same from a user's point of view.
In reply to I'm not saying this shouldn… by bobjp
I run into the situation all the time. Example I've entered an orchestral score with a range from pp to f. I'd like to export an mp3 file, but I find that pp is really too soft for what I want, so go back and select all the pp dynamics and delete each one and then add p instead. Would be AMAZING to just select all the pp dynamics I want to replace and hit click on p or mp.
In reply to I run into the situation all… by Tim Maynard
#311128: Improvement to Changing of Elements is the suggestion for the improvement. More comments supporting the improvement will show those who make decisions that they should implement the suggestion.
This is still an open source program, that is anyone can submit code to make an improvement. The owners of the program have now hired several programmers they can assign to specific capabilities in the program and they would be wise to listen when several people think someone has a good idea. I encourage anyone supporting this or any other suggestion to make comments in the suggestion in the issue tracker.