Semi-frets in fretboard diagrams should not be shown

• Mar 23, 2016 - 09:08
Type
Functional
Severity
S5 - Suggestion
Status
active
Project
MuseScore

GIT commit: 176a6d7/ Windows 7

Currently, the semi-frets are shown in MuseScore. And on both sides, in the case of a barré.
demi-frette.jpg

This is probably not a good idea, visually it's a little disturbing, and in relation to other programs that do not adopt this display, I quote GP for example, see image below (I think Sibelius and Finale also)
GP.jpg
And also in MuseScore when the barré is located on the first fret. So, by consistency, better to not show these semi-frets.
Fa muse.jpg

Comments

• Mar 23, 2016 - 10:55

To me, these are elegant and show that the fingerboard continue at the bottom and that we are not at the start of the fingerboard (it's redundant with the position of course but still...)

In the code, we do a bit of work in order to draw these refinements. If we remove them, the code will be a bit smaller...

Any opinion?

Reply

• Mar 23, 2016 - 17:40

I'm more familiar with no extended "string" lines but having numbering, so the display in MuseScore looks incomplete and ragged to me. That said, there are bigger issues in the world.

Reply

• Mar 23, 2016 - 20:12
Title Semi-frets in fretboard diagrams should not be shown ⇒ Semi-frets in fretboard diagrams should not be shown

Based on web image searches, it appears that it is more common to cut them off at the bottom fret. I found the other style also used, though, and I like the look of it better—to me as a non-guitarist, it's more obvious that it's supposed to represent the strings of a guitar. ;-)

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 07:14

It looks like the more guitarist you are (cadiz, geetar), the more you like "square" fretboard diagrams, the less guitarist you are (Isaac, myself), the more you prefer the "refined" fretboard.

Since I prefer to please the guitarists, I'm ok to remove the refinements... Any other opinion?

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 07:48

"Refined" fretboard? Well, note that I see none "refined" fretboard, as you say, in the published scores (I looked some methods for guitar, ukulélé, mandoline) and on the web resources.
Certainly exceptions, as it should, but they do not run the streets!
This will also save space in the Diagrams palette. X unnecessary semi-frets multiplied by 20, 50, 100 diagrams give a lot of frets ... and the chords (so, diagrams), there are thousands ...

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 08:12

Yes, absolutely. Again, chords (diagrams), there are thousands.
Look at this example (image below) after have adjusting the cell size with a width of 36 and a height of 30. I get this: the semi-frets collide with the separating lines. Without these semi-frets, I should get a clearer display with the same cell size, right?
chelle.jpg

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 08:33

to me it doesn't make any difference at the top (fat line vs. thin with overshooting strings), maybe at the bottom, a Millimeter or 2, IMHO not worth any effort.

Much more important to me would be to be able to have numbers in(stead of?) the dots (and the bar?), the actual fingering of the chords. At least that's what I'd need, at a beginners guitarist level (I am at that lever since some 35 years ;-))
Maybe also having the option to have them turned 90 degreed counter clockwise.
Maybe having different thinkness of the strings too (the lower the pitch, the thicker the string and so its line).
This is what I'm seeing in the beginners books I have (all by Peter Bursch).

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 08:59

Look at various publications (no only an author) and various styles for plucked instruments, you will never see these semi-frets.
"Much more important to me would be to be able to have numbers in(stead of?) the dots (and the bar?), the actual fingering of the chords"
To have numbers, agreed. For me, not necessary at all (but yes, I am a professional). Of memory, work was undertaken (the beginning) several months ago. I think the numbers on the dots, it would simply unreadable. But on the low side of the diagram, where these semi-frets currently are, why not! This is more or less standard.
GP_1.jpg

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 09:55

you as a pro won't need fret diagrams at all, I guess ;-)
I've so far only seen the fingering numbers instead of the dots, or inside them. Much easier to read IHMO

Reply

• Mar 24, 2016 - 13:00

Optional fingering numbers at the base of the diagram, or in circles on the strings, is a feature worth considering.

Reply

• Mar 25, 2016 - 15:16

Some testimonies gathered of guitarists, this morning and this afternoon on a well-known guitar forum (French forum) regarding this request.

B.C: "It is true that this proposal is the most simple, as legible, and is undoubtedly save space somewhere.
I am for! "

M. "The two solutions work for me although it was more used to see enclosed diagrams.
For cons, I find the number of the particularly ugly box. Too big ?

F. "The second display (requested style) seems to be most often used in the books I looked, but I was used to the first display in some jazz that I put in own with MuseScore .
So I have no preference. "

P.P: "As for me, and just a matter of aesthetics I prefer closed properly diagrams."

So to summarize: regarding these testimonies (four only yes for now, but four neverless), I notice that none admits a stated preference for the current display.

Note: The second member (M. , second testimony) does not know the size setting in General etc. Now, she knows that :)

But it is indeed possible that a default 150% setting would be preferable and more suitable?

Reply

• Jan 1, 2019 - 01:15

The "semi-frets" as you call them are an important visual indicator reminding you that you are not at first position. Combined with the fret number and the bold bar for the fret, we have a nice set of visual cues showing us where we are along the neck. This should not change.

Reply