Why can't I now print PDF of TAB Only?
I have version 3.6.2.
I used to write lute tab scores with treble clef and tab stave, and could print each stave separately. Now I can't do that, and wonder why.
I don't think I did anything differently from before: create a guitar and tab score, change the tab to lute tuning, write my score, then print each stave separately.
Score attached.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Lavinian Shore.mscz | 17.72 KB |
Comments
When, where and with what score could you do that?
In reply to When, where and with wnat… by Jojo-Schmitz
Your score contains two linked staves. Look at the two check marks - image below. That's why you can't get a PDF export with two separate staves.
However, I guess you want this?
See:
Lavinian Shore2.mscz
Question, out of curiosity: why do you start with a guitar staff when you have a choice of lutes and other related instruments (with their proper tuning already setted?)
In reply to Your score contains two… by cadiz1
Thanks. I'm not sure how I linked the staves. Did that happen automatically with an upgrade version? I do not want them linked. I'll give your instructions a try.
I used lute for shorthand. Usually I choose one of the lute tunings, but this particular score is for a lyra viol in and Open G Major tuning. I could - on reflection - have just used an acoustic guitar tab for that tuning. Lyra viol scores are usually written in lute tab, but they used so many different tunings, some editing of the string names is required.
In reply to Thanks. I'm not sure how I… by robmackillop
That Guitar Solo plus Tablature template has the staves linked (and ever had)
In reply to Your score contains two… by cadiz1
I've now managed to create new unlinked staves, and have copied the treble clef notes into the new stave, and copied that into the tab. It's easy to print parts. My question now is: is there a quicker way to unlink staves? I have many scores that need to be unlinked.
In reply to When, where and with wnat… by Jojo-Schmitz
I'm not sure what you mean, Jojo
In reply to I'm not sure what you mean. by robmackillop
How and with what version of MuseScore did you create scores where you could have separate PDFs for normal staff and tablature.
Linked staves are a thing since MuseScore 2, as are linked parts.
In reply to How and with what version of… by Jojo-Schmitz
Well, somehow I must have had a setting for unlinked staves. I can't remember asking it to link or not link, that's just the way it was.
In reply to How and with what version of… by Jojo-Schmitz
"Thanks. I'm not sure how I linked the staves. Did that happen automatically with an upgrade version? I do not want them linked. I'll give your instructions a try."
The template, Guitar + Tablature, has linked staves by default
If you want no linked staves (and print each staff), as explained above, create two instruments in the Wizzard.
In reply to "Thanks. I'm not sure how I… by cadiz1
Yes, I get that now, thanks. But there must be a quicker way of unlinking staves in older scores? I have many I wish to unlink.
In reply to Yes, I get that now, thanks… by robmackillop
There's no way to unlink. Just add a new tab staff, copy/paste the notes accoss, delete the linked staff
In reply to There's no way to unlink… by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks. Will do. Pity I didn't spot it before creating all the scores.
In reply to Thanks. Will do. Pity I didn… by robmackillop
Here's how to do it:
Open your score and press "I" (capital i) to open the Instruments dialogue box. Highlight the linked standard stave and select "remove from score".
Voila - at least it works for me!
In reply to Rob, here's how to do it:… by Brer Fox
But that won't turn it into an unlinked staff
In reply to But that won't turn it into… by Jojo-Schmitz
No, but the OP wants to print out separate parts, one in tab, one in staff notation. My method - which I assume is what he used in the past - produces separate parts without having to do the copy and paste, and is quicker than yours, I think.
Maybe he'll come back and tell us!
In reply to No, but the OP wants to… by Brer Fox
That seems like what the OP should do.
After printing the TAB (or the standard notation), 'undo' will restore the score so that any future edits will still have 'linkage'.
Also, all old scores will not have to be 'unlinked'.
In reply to No, but the OP wants to… by Brer Fox
Thanks, Brer. That works a treat. I remove the standard clef, export a pdf of what is left, then Undo to restore the original. I can also save the tab-only score with a new name, and still have the original as was. Brilliant.
In reply to Thanks, Brer. That works a… by robmackillop
Hi Robmackillop,
I also need the functionality you want.
Requests for great flexibility exist on the forum here and here.
In a future version of MuseScore you could easily configure your linked-staff score so it could create a Tablature-only PDF:
* if MuseScore allowed users to show/hide individual staves in an instrument (In forum discussion—if I understood correctly—it has been mentioned that the functionality is currently possible, but there's simply no visibility checkbox for linked staves in the Instrument dialog. I'd be surprised if it was that simple, but it sure would be great!)
-- or --
* if MuseScore could generate parts for the individual staves in an Instrument
scorster
In reply to Hi Robmackillop, I also need… by scorster
Good ideas, scorster. I hope they get implemented sometime soon.
In reply to Good ideas, scorster. I hope… by robmackillop
Thanks robmackillop,
I've mentioned some of the following points on the forum a number of times. But I'm not shy to underscore them again here.
Well honed tablature could greatly add to MuseScore's widespread adoption. I believe this because I assume that—well beyond the number of movie score writers and orchestrators—there are a much greater number of amateurs, semi-pro musicians and professionals who rely on tablature and chord charts with little or no need for standard notation.
It's just a numbers thing:
It's likely that under 2% of literate musicians are orchestral or movie score composers or arrangers. And maybe another few percent are serious educators or part of the publishing industry. Meaning that the remaining 90 to 95% of people likely to use notation software are the rest of us: a) those who teach b) those who self-document into notation what they compose or learn by ear c) amateurs, who likely range in talent from the best of musicians to complete beginners. And it's essential to extrapolate that b) and c) are the people most likely to use tablature and chord charts.
And it stands to reason that app developers aim for widespread adoption of their software. Of course, MuseScore is somewhat unique in this regard, as the notation app is entirely free. So what would be the benefits of MuseScore's widespread adoption since the app's popularity does not directly generate revenue? And why would MuseScore care to appeal to amateurs when it has successfully focused on producing professional level music engraving software?
• First, I don't have any window into the function and economics of MuseScore.org (the free notation app side of the equation) nor MuseScore.com (the subscription supported score sharing site) so the following is entirely conjecture.
• Obviously MuseScore.org's notation application is the content creation tool for MuseScore.com. And I suppose there's a chance that MuseScore.com turns an ongoing profit. To continue the synergy and growth perhaps Musescore.com reinvests some of that revenue into MuseScore.org app development. Assuming that scalability in is favor of MuseScores .com & .org, then growth on one side probably benefits the other. And growth on either side probably means greater profit or potential profit.
• Profit aside, MuseScore's widespread adoption means there are more people contributing to MuseScore development, simply by posting for support (and thereby outlining the places where users easily get lost) , by reporting bugs, by making valuable and creative requests and suggestions, by updating the documentation, by evangelizing MuseScore, and by working on the code to improve MuseScore by fixing bugs and adding features.
If the previous points are reasonably aligned to reality I hope MuseScore works hard on two fronts:
1) in continuing its steady march toward the highest quality engraving (matched by ease of use and stability.)
2) in garnering widespread adoption by appealing to the masses, and needs of amateurs, which likely means:
• tablature that rivals and exceeds the options in the competition
• overall ease of use and excellent UX (which apparently is around the corner in v4.0)
• learning tools like improved Looping functions, and the option to play along with the great recordings (at any speed, in any key) by slaving MuseScore playback to apps like Transcribe, by Seventh String
The list goes on ... but the point is the same.
Widespread adoption would likely benefit MuseScore.org and MuseScore.com because, as stated, there are way more amateurs and beginners than top-tier professionals. And many of those amateurs may be excellent copywriters who may care to contribute to the Handbook. Or they may be professional developers capable of contributing to the code, particularly in areas that help them get a foothold in music—and there's the synergy that would invite and captivate more everyday users.
The love of music by everyday people could really propel MuseScore forward ... if MuseScore supports the needs of everyday musicians.
Just sayin'.
scorster
In reply to I've mentioned some of the… by scorster
Well said.
In reply to I've mentioned some of the… by scorster
FWIW, I have no argument with improving overall ease of use, but what that means is highly subjective. But FWIW, the numbers don't support your assessment that the set of MuseScore users can be divided into 2% doing orchestral compositions and 98% caring primarily about tablature. Actually, by far the most common usage statistically is piano music, according to the most recent stats I saw.
Amateurs and non-amateurs alike do indeed like to have practice tools, but it's important to keep in mind that isn't MuseScore's primary function. Not saying there can't also be features to support that, but they should always be second in priority to actually creating sheet music. So while it's important indeed to focus on amateurs, it's even more important to focus on their notation needs specifically. Defining what that means in practice may be easier said than done, but it's important to have the right vision and focus.