Mark missing cautionary accidentals
I created a prototype of an 'add cautionary accidentals' plugin. It's called 'mark' because a plugin currently cannot add an accidental to a note. Instead, it colors notes red, when there should be a cautionary accidental. It's up to you to add them and to use lasconic's blacknotes plugin to remove the color.
Warning: This is ALPHA software. Save your score before trying this!
Due to some other restrictions in the plugin framework, already discussed in http://musescore.org/en/node/17747 it does not work with scores
containing
- key signature changes
- transposing instruments
- instruments without a key signature
Despite of these restrictions, it might still be of some use, and the algorithm itself would hopefully need little changes, once the plugin framework supports the missing features.
So, please test and comment.
EDIT: It only works on the selection! If nothing is selected, it'll also do nothing...
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| markCautionary.zip | 3.42 KB |
Comments
How clever to workaround the limitations by using color! That's actually a nice feature because it gives the user an opportunity to review the choices. Not sure what your algorithm is (next measure only? same octave only?), but I could see having the algorithm mark things pretty aggressively - perhaps using different colors depending on whether how many measures have elapsed and whether it is the same octave. - and then the user decide how many of those suggestions to take. Even if/when the framework supports doing the actual work automatically, I think the coloring would be a nice touch to let the user review and undo if desired.
Anyhow, thanks for making this available, and I look forward to trying it out!
In reply to How clever to workaround the by Marc Sabatella
Thanks... :-)
Well, the algorithm is (supposed to do) next measure and same octave only. However, it will mark accidentals for notes on different staves of the same part as long as they actually are in the same octave.
I attached a little example file:
Maybe the tied note should not cause a marking in the next measure, but only the note actually carrying an accidental (the F# in m.1) should be remembered to measure 2. It would be possible to change this. (Note.tied)
In reply to Thanks... :-) Well, the by heuchi
Yes, that's how I'd want it to work by default, and if/when it becomes possible for the plugin to add the accidentals, those are the only ones I'd want added automatically. But I like the idea of using color to identify other potential opportunities. Different octave same measure is one I often see marked. And some of my classical editions will markednotes even several measures later. Actually, I'd be curious what Elaine Gould says about this in Behind Bars, or if the subject comes up.
As fare as I'm aware these accidentals are more commonly called "courtesy accedentals", not "cautionary accidentals"? At least they are inside MuseScore, I think?
In reply to As fare as I'm aware these by Jojo-Schmitz
In the US, I think "courtesy" is probably more common, but I've definitely seen both. Athough maybe I've seen "cautionary" mostly from sources outside the US? Never really paid attention.
I'm not aware of any places in MuseScore where e itherterm is used in any official sesne (ie, exposed in the UI). The US English version of the handbook makes a brief mention of cautionary accidentals in the section on accidentals.
In reply to In the US, I think "courtesy" by Marc Sabatella
the UI uses courtesy time signature and courtesy key signature, guess I had mixed that up.
But it seems Finale calls them courtesy accidentals.
it's just a great plugin what I was searching for! thank you very much heuchi! by the way, it could be great to have this plugin included with version 2.0. there will be something like that?
In reply to it's just a great plugin what by Karolis B.
Might be a good idea to place this plugin in the plugin repository first? And to store the source on GitHub, maybe?
Should be possible to port this plugin over to the new qml plugin framework of 2.0.
In reply to Might be a good idea to place by Jojo-Schmitz
I added an entry to the plugin repository. (Does not yet appear in the list. Don't know if this is just a cache/recreate index thing, or if I did something wrong.)
Regarding v2.0:
The last time I had a look at the plugin framework there was still a lot of change going on and there were still a lot of functions missing.
I don't know the current status of the plugin framework implementation, but it might not yet be the time to port it.
In reply to I added an entry to the by heuchi
I can see it in the repository.
The plugin framework for 2.0 hasn't been change in recent months