Bug in setup of tablature staff

• Jul 22, 2017 - 09:48

There seems to be a bug in the setup of tablature staffs (my goal is to create a tab staff for
Renaissance Guitar/Vihuela).

Steps to reproduce:

- Create a new tab staff (Tab. 6-str. Italian)
- Select "Staff Properties >> Edit String Data"
- Delete two strings

Even so now only 4 strings are accept note input he staff will still show 6 strings.

(N.B: I know that I can use 4-String standard as a starting point an the tweak the tab
formatting, but changing the number of strings should work)

Comments

cadiz1

• Jul 22, 2017 - 10:31

(N.B: I know that I can use 4-String standard as a starting point an the tweak the tab
formatting)
Or, when you are in Staff Properties (possible too in Advanced style properties - with a Preview), adjust the number of lines (image below) to the new number of strings.

- For the record, I think it is expected that the renaissance guitar (four strings) will be supported as an instrument in the next major version. And for the vihuela (6 strings/courses), well, this is exactly the tuning of a 6-courses lute (versions in G or A, I know but not really a concern)

rmattes

• Jul 22, 2017 - 11:27

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I missed the number-of-lines setting.
I'm actually not convinced about the use of more added instruments. For the ren. guitar alone you'd need two tab styles (italian and french) and three tunings. Same goes for the
vihuela: variants in 5/6/7 strings, four tab styles and a whole plethora of tunings and several
pitch levels.
I think for us early musicians an easy and well-documented (!) way to adapt a vew basic
templates is much more useful. Bonus points for the abiliy to im- and export- individual instrument definitions.
(And as a small (and grumpy) side note: I might be a good idea to remove those absolutly
silly non-tab lute templates. Seriously, noone ever notates lutes in violin clefs. A 5-course
lute (late medieval plectrum lute, I assume) in that range ...

cadiz1

• Jul 22, 2017 - 11:28

Let us take an inverse case.
Eg, you want to write a 7-string guitar score (common in Brazilian music) that is not implemented.
So you have to add a seventh line to the Tablature in Staff properties.

Imagine that this is done automatically (I do not know if that could be considered) as you seem to suggest. But MuseScore is not supposed to guess the string/pitch you wish.

So, in any way, you should go in Edit String data to check and/or choose the appropriate string and pitch.
The way is so to start by adding a string, the one you want, then adjust the number of tab lines required.
So I think this is "by design".

rmattes

• Jul 22, 2017 - 11:41

No, I did not expect this to be done automatically. It doesn't make sense for ex. lutes.
In terms of UI design, I'd expect the n-o-lines setting visually much closer to the n-o-strings setting, or, even better, a combined setting (maybe linked to the n-o-lines value) in the 'String Data' dialog (maybe another boolean col. 'has line'). That would even cater for some more exotic instruments with unfretted strings on both sides of the fretted ones.

cadiz1

• Jul 22, 2017 - 12:42

"No, I did not expect this to be done automatically [...]In terms of UI design, I'd expect the n-o-lines setting visually much closer to the n-o-strings"

Okay, I had not understand this first.
But so, I don't think we could call this as a bug in setup.
In this section, there is Lines, but also Distance, Scaling etc.

"I might be a good idea to remove those absolutly silly non-tab lute templates. Seriously, noone ever notates lutes in violin clefs"

You seem to forget that there is already by default a score for lute with tablature (6-courses lute)
tab display.jpg
And for the others, 7 courses and more, the change of the staff type (for Tab, Italian or French), in the right column of the dialog, may be done in two clicks, no more. Really not a big deal.

Especially since, this done, you can keep it as a template and never have to do the manipulation again.
That being said, I agree with you to say that this would be expected. And good news, I think I can say that this is also planned for a next version.

rmattes

• Jul 22, 2017 - 14:11

You seem to forget that there is already by default a score for lute with tablature (6-courses lute)
No, I'm well aware of these templates. What I was questioning was the use of violin clefs for the staff variants. This is rather, erm, unconvetional for renaissance lute (last examples I've seen where from the 1930th) but definitely absurd for theorbo (where even the highest string would fall on below the staff).

Also, I don't see the need for such a lot of variants for renaissance lute. Why have a template for both 5 and 6 course lute? (and one could that a generic 11 course ren.
template would be enough. One can easily change the tuning of the bass strings:
7 course = 10 course with 7th string retuned etc.)

One template type (understandably) missing is it lute notated with two staffs (like a piano). This, after all, is the standard way to notate lute music (both in modern transcriptions as well as in the original baroque manuscripts).

cadiz1

• Jul 22, 2017 - 15:14

I fundamentally disagree on this term of generic lute. How awful! I own and play lutes 6, 7, and 8 courses, and I can tell you that this bristles the hair by hearing that they would come from a generic lute of x strings!
Each has a "personality" and a particular repertoire and tuning (the most common in any case). A 7- course and 8-course, it is not the same thing/tuning.

Why not a generic guitar of 11 or 20 strings (that said, I know a Brazilian luthier who built this!) And I do not know what else with other instruments...

Another thing, and I speak from experience: I know and have seen users made mistakes, to mix the brushes (on forums for guitarists, some of which play the lute), which were beginners, or inexperienced with Musescore, when they wanted to change a pitch, add or remove a string.

So I continue to think that it would be really a bad idea to add risks of confusion and error with this kind of generic instrument. And the player of a 8-course lute will be glad to choose a score suited to his instrument. More rewarding for him, and no confusion possible. Better definitively in my opinion.

rmattes

• Jul 22, 2017 - 17:44

Please read careful - I never claimed this. But we are not debating the morphological differences between different types of lutes. This is a notation software forum, not
one for amateur organology (btw, wasn't it you who suggested using lute as a template
for vihuela ...? :-)

The question is: is there a notational difference between, say, a piece for a 7 course lute and one for a 10 course lute? The equivalent to your suggestion would be
to have harpsichord templates for instruments with or without short octave. Or having
"early viennese Piano" vs. "french mid-19th century piano".

... which were beginners, or inexperienced ...
Yes, sometimes one needs to learn to master the tools one uses. Same goes for Lute, btw.

And the player of a 8-course lute will be glad to choose a score suited to his instrument. ... no confusion possible.
I still fail to see what is so confusing in not entering notes on non-existing strings.
And please consider: for 8/9/10/11 course instruments you need to adapt the tuning depending on the key of the piece anyway. And for 17th century music you'd need a whooping 21 different tunings ...

cadiz1

• Jul 22, 2017 - 18:18

Please, I own and play lutes (4) and vihuelas (2), inter alia early instruments.
I never suggested taking the lute template for vihuela. I know and I practice these instruments. You misinterpreted. I was simply saying that the tuning of the vihulea was similar to that of the 6-course lute (eg, when in G tuning). Simply.
BTW, your "smiling" and implied remark is inappropriate.

"sometimes one needs to learn to master the tools one uses. Same goes for Lute, btw."

Yes, but it is useless to add unnecessary strings, and I repeat that each instrument is specific.

"And please consider: for 8/9/10/11 course instruments you need to adapt the tuning depending on the key of the piece anyway. And for 17th century music you'd need a whooping 21 different tunings ..."

21 tunings, you talk about the baroque area (and for a short period, at the beginning), not the renaissance area.

From Fronimo (specialized software), and instruments list, see:

rmattes

• Jul 22, 2017 - 20:35

Please, I own and play lutes (4) and vihuelas (2), inter alia early instruments.

And how is that relevant for this discussion? Please, let's not play the "I have more
lutes than you" game.

I never suggested taking the lute template for vihuela. I know and I practice these instruments. You misinterpreted. I was simply saying that the tuning of the vihulea was similar to that of the 6-course lute (eg, when in G tuning). Simply.

Sorry, but IMVHO using a 6-course lute template for 6-course vihuela music is perfectly o.k.

BTW, your "smiling" and implied remark is inappropriate.

I'm sorry, I was trying to keep me from getting to frustrated.

Yes, but it is useless to add unnecessary strings,

But you don't add them. They are just there in case you need them.
It's the same as with a piano score: you don't add a low contra C, you can just
use it in case you need to.

and I repeat that each instrument is specific.

I never questioned that. It's just that specific instruments share the same notation.
Create a score with both a 7-ourse lute tab staff and a 10-course lute tab staff.
And then tell me where there's a difference. And if someone swapped the two behind your back, would you even notice?

cadiz1

• Jul 22, 2017 - 21:16

"Yes, but it is useless to add unnecessary strings,"
"But you don't add them."

Misunderstanding again. It is not easy to debate sometimes in a non-maternal language. I'm not talking about adding strings: I use MuseScore since years. It's the idea of a generic lute of x strings that does not work for me, as already said. And If softwares such as Fronimo have instruments defined for lute of 6 or 7 or 8 courses, this means that there is relevance in there.
And completely relevant for me too.

MLutz

• Jul 28, 2017 - 11:47

Hi cadiz1, interestingly this seems a discussion like the one, we had because of my proposal for reducing the number of lute instruments and having more direct tablature templates, as lutes normally are notated in tablature (nearly always).
https://musescore.org/de/node/207321

Unfortunately I still don't have a clue, what to do now in this case.
But it seems to be really important to me to find a good way to have templates.

For me still there is a big difference between Rennaissance tuned (old tuning) lutes and the lutes of the baroque times that are tuned in d minor mainly, but also in many different tunings (accord nouveaux).
It is simply not practical to have a template for each tuning. As you may guess, I support the idea of https://musescore.org/en/user/245466 to have only some important tunings, string numbers, as you always have to change tunings, strings etc. even within the same manuscript of music!

cadiz1

• Jul 28, 2017 - 13:19

I don't support your idea (I am even opposed to it), you know that now.

Let's go to the essential, as already said: a template for 6-course, 7-course, 8-course, 10-course, 11-course, and 13-course lutes.

Needless to want to set up all possible tunings of course. Each time, one can agree on the most common of the observed tuning in a current/common use of the lutenists.

And, by chance, this is already implemented (by Miwarre) in MuseScore, so everything is fine. Everything is already there, except a template for 11-course.

And let us keep, to see, for template for 5-course and 9-course lute, and add one eg for renaissance guitar, and that's all. Thanks.

MLutz

• Aug 27, 2017 - 16:23

So I now make another proposal.
I have deleted the "lute", as this is a doublette to the 6-course lute.
I have added a 4-course lute, which is the same as 4-course Renaissance guitar, 5-course lute, a 9-course lute, 11-course Baroque lute (the baroque is essential, and I'm not discussing on it, btw it is already in the musescore list like that for 13-course baroque lute), further I have added Angelique (which still needs a little code change to be shown in the correct way) and Mandora (only with 6 courses, though 7-9 courses also had been in use quite often).
The lute instruments always have the french tab as default, but I also added notation with a downward octaved key (which is not optimal, but it is not possible to have a combined violin/bass-system at the moment), which is working quite good for these instruments.
For 6-,7-course lute and the archlute I also added Italian tab as possibility, which was used quite often and still is used!

Instrument id=“lute-4-course“
Instrument id=“lute-4-course-notation“
Instrument id=“lute-5-course“
Instrument id=“lute-5-course-notation“
Instrument id=“lute-6-course“
Instrument id=“lute-6-course-italiantab“>
Instrument id=“lute-6-course-notation“
Instrument id=“lute-7-course“
Instrument id=“lute-7-course-italiantab“
Instrument id=“lute-7-course-notation“
Instrument id=“lute-8-course“
Instrument id=“lute-8-course-notation“
Instrument id=“lute-9-course“
Instrument id=“lute-9-course-notation“next
Instrument id=“lute-10-course“
Instrument id=“lute-10-course-notation“
Instrument id=“baroque-lute-11-course“
Instrument id=“baroque-lute-11-course-notation“
Instrument id=“baroque-lute-13-course“
Instrument id=“baroque-lute-13-course-notation“
Instrument id=“mandora-6-course“
Instrument id=“mandora-6-course-notation“
Instrument id=“angelique“
Instrument id=“angelique-notation“
Instrument id=“archlute-14-course“
Instrument id=“archlute-14-course-italiantab“
Instrument id=“archlute-14-course-notation“
Instrument id=“theorbo-14-course“
Instrument id=“theorbo-14-course-notation“

This seems to me to be a good compromise.

Attachment	Size
instruments-3.xml	462.37 KB