Multiple parts to a staff
Some of this might be in musescore 3? Not sure.
Easy mode examples:
Winds: I have two clarinet parts. I'd like to be able to combine them into a single staff, different voices, or split staff, or entirely seperate parts. Extra credit if I can assign a seperate playback instrument to each part, regardless of staves or voices.
Strings: same, except the extra credit is mostly covered. If I could play pizzicato on one divisi of a split staff and Arco on the other, that'd be awesome. Instruments assigned to parts instead of staves might help.
Hard mode:
Winds: I really want to be able to combine entirely different instruments onto a single part and a single stave. Flute 2/piccolo, Oboe 2/English horn. Or god help us all, Reed book 1: clarinet, Alto and soprano sax, oboe, and a didgeridoo. Yeah.
Biggest issue with this is we would need the ability to do local transposition. The easy mode stuff should have so instruments aren't tied to staves - if I want to make a non handwritten Reed book from hell and have it playback to check for mistakes, I could select a bunch of notes and assign them to an instrument.
Strings:
Some scores call for about forty million divisi strings. This is less hard mode than a 12 instrument Reed book, but it'd be nice if we could have an option to edit what the staves are labeled as in a particular page. If I have 3 solo celli, I want the other staff to be labeled tutti Vc. on the pages with the soli. If I have 6 soli violas, I want to be able to label combined staves or split staves as 1, 2&3, 4&5, and 6.
Local Staff labels is probably the easiest thing in here. Local transposition is second easiest. Merging and splitting staves and parts is very major, and I hope in ms 3. Instruments not slaved to staves is also major and playback related,so least likely to actually happen. But Anyway,thought it's all features I'm requesting.
Comments
MuseScore 3 will indeed have the ability to associate parts with particular voices, so you can combine clarinet parts onto one staff. No particular reason it couldn't be flute and oboe, although it won't playback as expected; you could force that to happen with invisible staves, channel changes, etc. But is that what you are asking for - flute and oboe at same time on same staff - or just changing from one to th other? That has long been possible already, just add an Instrument Change from the text palette, and yes, transposition works.
In reply to MuseScore 3 will indeed have… by Marc Sabatella
At the same time would be the hard stuff, one of things I'm not expecting to happen. The instrument change way had some issues last I tried it - it created a new instrument every time there was a change, which is a nightmare to manage when you already have 26 instruments. Can you do local transposition without an instrument change? Like for Clarinet in Bb to Clarinet in A. It'd be nice to do Clarinet 1 in Bb and A on one staff and not two, and theres no need for an actual instrument change. It'd also mean I could do bass clef Horn parts properly, no confusing ottava clef required.
Edit: at the same time would be really, really nice, though. Something like with string parts where you can have pizzicato and arco on the same staff at the same time via voice management.
In reply to At the same time would be… by Laurelin
I'll start with this reply, then reply to the original post.
Instrument changes are necessary to have the different key signatures for the different clarinets. Since there are usually not more than 3 or 4 instrument changes, I don't see this as a huge problem for the one mixer channel clarinet. In version 3, there will be mixer channels created for the new instruments, but the instrument changes will be hidden until you expand the channels on the staff.
For the Horn part, I guess you are referring to the traditional notes written an octave lower than sounding. I prefer to never use an ottava clef, but this is one of the few cases I can't work around without instrument changes, and I don't feel the need to resort to that.
As far as pizz. and arco on the same staff in different voices, this is already doable, you just need to make the text make sense for a human to read. In a single staff text, you can set each voice to it's own play style. If you use *ASO you have enough channels that you can make one arco, one pizz., one con sord. and one pizz. con sord. if you want, not that you would. In each of the 4 lines in staff properties you select the voices you want to assign a style to, then use the drop down to select the style. With the default, you can easily assign arco to voice 1 and pizz. to voice 2. You can do all of the voices at once, or do each voice with it's own text. MuseScore will honor the last text it arrives at. I have done this once or twice while transcribing scores - voice 1 has arco, voice 2 has pizz. I use one text to change both voices since I think it's easier to manage.
*ASO = Aegean symphonic orchestra
In reply to I'll start with this reply,… by mike320
The problem with the one mixer channel clarinet is that its in there with 18 other instruments, including strings, which are three in one. Also I never have a one mixer channel clarinet unless it's actually a solo clarinet. I've two, usually. Unless it's Rite of Spring or Russian Christmas, then I have... five and eight. Russian Christmas is band, though, and therefore not silly enough to need an A clarinet. The alto saxes would all strike if they wrote in E major.
I already knew about pizz/arco, that's why I used it as an example. However.... you can add string style extra instruments to a staff using xml? That I did not know. So then if we could do a local transposition... all the woodwind problems would be solved. Just make woodwinds a default two instrument thing in xml, and the if there were local transposition... You could easily have english horn/oboe parts and piccolo/flute.
So I guess I want string hard mode and local transposition. For those of us who are not crazy about switching instruments and need to make parts with A, Bb, and C clarinets, or Horn in E,F and D, or Trumpet in - Wagner was a deeply insane brass dude - F, D, C, and E. All of which do not need an actual instrument change and really could use local transposition.
Wagner Die Walkure, for example. The parts are terrible looking, I'd love to be able to create something readable and accurate and not half-handwritten. There are six changes of trumpet in ___ key in the first act, not including cue notes, which are a whole different discussion. Horns have five changes in the first SCENE. Clarinets have 4 changes in the first scene. In an orchestra that would require 26 + 10(strings) instruments in the first place - If you are as conservative as possible and combine everything you can. The mixer on that is just nutso whatever I do - usually I'd have separate staves for A, and Bb clarinets, which isn't too bad, but here that'd be four extra staves for two clarinets in three keys, and that's just... it's crazy no matter what I do. Seriously, the guy has six harps. Anything to make it easier to condense instruments and staves.
Tl;Dr: Local transposition without instrument changes, and the ability to locally edit staves. Pretty please.
In reply to The problem with the one… by Laurelin
Channels aren't instruments, so transposition is not going to happen. It's possible someday there will be the ability to reuse existing instruments. But given for 3.0 the channels will be collapsed into one column, it shouldn't be a particular problem to have more than you need.
In reply to Channels aren't instruments,… by Marc Sabatella
What do channels have to do with transposition? Are you talking about the low level midi thing itself? Why would you need to change channels to have a different transposition?
In reply to What do channels have to do… by Laurelin
You don't, quite the opposite. Channel is a sound thing only, has nothing to do with notation whatsoever. THus, it has nothing to do with clef, nothing to do with transposition, nothing to do with anything you can see on paper. It is about sound and sound only - controlling which of the various sounds get used, the relative loudness of that sound, etc. If you care about transposition, then you shouldn't even be using the word channel. Add an instrument change and everything just works - the notation and the sound (because an instrument change adds a channel to support the possibility of a different sound for the the new instrument; you don't have to take advantage of that possibility, though).
In short: if you want to see something different on the score, you add an instrument change, and use the change instrument command to select the new instrument, which will affect both the transposition and the sound, if either is appropriate. You don't need to even know the Mixer exists in order to take advantage of this.
In reply to The problem with the one… by Laurelin
First of all I think Wagner was insane and his scores are but one piece of evidence.
As previously pointed out, in version 3 mid-staff instrument changes will not clutter the mixer nearly as bad as in previous versions. You will have the option to see them only if you want to.
You seem confused about what I meant by a single channel clarinet. Each clarinet staff you add to the score adds one channel to the mixer. Also, each mid-staff instrument change to a clarinet adds one channel. That is what I was referring to when I said a one channel clarinet.
When first introduced, it sounded like there was going to be a change staff type text in version 3 that would allow for changing transposition and types of staff mid-staff like a pitched to non-pitched percussion. But it currently doesn't do either, in fact it's totally broke and I'll file a bug report soon.
The current problem with a flute and piccolo or oboe and E. horn on the same staff at the same time is the transpositions cannot currently happen no matter what you do to the xml file. You can only have one key signature and one transposition on a staff. This is another item that sounded like it would be different in version 3 than it is. When I first heard of the parts being separated by voices, I thought you would be able to combine the E. horn and Oboe on the same staff, but it still wont work.
In reply to First of all I think Wagner… by mike320
I'm not confused. I have one staff (and one mixer channel) for Clarinet I, one for Clarinet II, etc. Rite of Spring I have one for Eb clarinet, Three for Clarinet I, II, and III, and two for Bass clarinet I and II... so six, not five, sorry. Yes, that's six staves, too, and... five total parts. Russian Christmas is one Eb clarinet, three clarinet section parts, alto, bass, and contrabass. Seven channels, seven staves, seven parts. Sorry, counting was off. But no, I don't ever only have one mixer channel for clarinet unless I have only one clarinet part. So a concerto with piano accompaniment, would be one mixer channel. I like my stuff to sound as accurate as possible, so Cl. I and II get to be played by two different clarinets. I noticed a while ago that if two parts have the same channel and are playing the same note it becomes weirdly loud. It's also much easier to do parts if you have everything on separate staves, and so far I've had to triage between score and parts - parts win. If it's something else I'm missing, please be specific - I'm guessing at what made you think I was confused.
Yes, the xml file solves playing multiple instruments on a staff issue, it doesn't solve the local transposition problem. But... if Change Instrument can now change transposition on a staff, can't that be done without the channel adding? Marc didn't really explain how they were connected, I hope he replies.
It'd be really damn cool if that Musescore 3 staff change thing solved the local transposition problem. Hoorah for bug reports!
In reply to I'm not confused. I have one… by Laurelin
Yes, as I have explained previously, an instrument change (ie, the "Instrument" item on the Text palette) on does change transposition, if you in fact use that instrument change to specify an instrument with a different transposition (via the "Change Instrument" command). This isn't new for 3.0; it has been the case ever since 2.1.
When you add an instrument change, then a channel is added because the new instrument might have a different sound - and that's the whole point of channels, to control sound. MuseScore sets the sound for that channel automatically when you do the "Change Instrument" command, so you don't normally need to every even look at it. The right thing just happens.
So again, no need to wait for 3.0, what you want has been possible already for well over a year.
In reply to First of all I think Wagner… by mike320
"First of all I think Wagner was insane and his scores are but one piece of evidence."
Because I followed this post, wanting the same things as Laurelin, I ran across your quote and I'm still laughing. Surely the man had problems. And my study of harp writing led me to criticisms of his harp writing in general, requiring movements "anatomically impossible" according to one harpist.
BTW - Another "piece of evidence": One of Tchaikovsky's first jobs was music critique for the Russian academy. He traveled to Bayreuth to review the Ring premier and the SOB snubbed him.
Well!
In all cases, you will get both correct notation and correct playback.
Winds: As long as the instruments have the same transposition you can put them on the same staff. (This means you can't put a bassoon and contrabassoon on the same staff) Start with a violin (for 3) or trumpet (for 2) instruments, or use an ASO instrument that includes a dark sound channel for 2 instruments. Set the sound for one channel to one instrument and one channel to the sound of the other instrument and ensure the proper transposition is set for the staff. This works for a few combinations like oboe and flute.
Strings: are covered in the answer below.
Hard mode: Winds: not currently possible without instrument changes, which you are trying to avoid.
Hard mode: Strings: Often asked for by people including by me. Perhaps at some point a programmer will agree with us.
In reply to In all cases, you will get… by mike320
Pretty much every single common doubling instrument has a different transposition - it's Flute II/Piccolo,
Oboe II/English Horn, Clarinet II/Bass Clarinet, Bassoon II/Contrabassoon. Not to mention single parts often call for the same instrument in different keys - Clarinet in A, Bb, or C. Horn in C(high and low), D, E, Eb, F, G,Bb(High and basso), Db. I probably forgot one. Trumpet in E, F, D, C, Bb, A. All without much change in the actual timbre of the instrument. Certainly not enough for me to have soundfonts of trumpets or horns in different keys. I don't need the instrument change, just the transposition. At least with Trombones I can just change the clef.
And it would solve the Horn bass clef problem.
Edit: Pretty much, you'll never be lucky enough to have flute and oboe on the same part, unless it's a musical theater style book, in which case you'll also have a piccolo, clarinet, or Soprano sax double to ruin your transposition free day.
In reply to Pretty much every single… by Laurelin
If it has a different transposition, then it is a different instrument. Doesn't matter if the sound is the same. That's the whole point. Changing from oboe to English horn is not a channel (synonym for "sound") change - it is an actual instrument change. MuseScore 2 already supports instrument changes, complete with transposition. Yes, you end up with a few extra mixer channels, but they cause no harm whatsoever, and in MuseScore 3 you won't even see those additional channels unless you ask to.
So again, you can already do what you want with only the smallest price (extra mixer channels), and in 3.0, you don't even have to worry about that.
In reply to If it has a different… by Marc Sabatella
An oboe/english horn double isn't the reason I want local transposition. It'd make it easier to not need to configure an instrument over and over, but that's not the reason.
Clarinet in A and Bb is the same instrument different key. Heck, I actually literally play Clarinet in C parts on my Bb, I don't need another channel for those. I'd just put the same clarinet in it, only now it harder to pick out which channel is playing back the part - because there are at least four channels configured exactly the same, same mixer settings, soundfonts, everything. Ditto for horn, except even more. I at least have an A clarinet. Meanwhile the Horn in F is playing parts written for horn in G, E, D, Eb, C(alto and normal), and Bb(normal and basso) without changing their instrument. Same for trumpet.
None of those require a sound change, only pros with money to burn - and not even them in regards to horns, and sometimes trumpets - actually literally change their instruments, and I'm not sure why that matters anyway?
"if it has a different transposition, then it is a different instrument. Doesn't matter if it sounds the same."
That's the part I'm not understanding, I think? Horn in E and Horn in F are literally played by the same instrument in pro symphony orchestras, and I'm not sure why midi channels need to reflect reality anyway, if that's the standard you're using? If you're talking about XML instruments, the only difference is the transposition, and again I don't know why that matters. I use tenor trombone instruments for alto often, and just switch out the clef. I'm not sure why that would be a problem. But otherwise, its midi channels, not real, so why would we need a new channel when our original one was fine?
Local transposition would also, speaking of horns, finally solve the Bass clef notation issue. For Horn in f, usually the transposition is a fifth down, but with Bass clef it's a fourth up. I can use an ottava clef, but then the notation is wrong. If I use the right clef, the transposition is wrong. And it is in an absolute sense, the same instrument, the same sound, and a different transposition.
I often feel like we talk past each other, or we're just not on the same page or something. Maybe this is pedagogical? Teaching people that clarinet in A or trumpet in D are literally different instruments from the standard Bb seems a bit - unnecessary?
The only other thing I can think of is that there is something wildly different about Musescore 3 channels - maybe they aren't just collapsed, but new ones will be set to the parent stave's original preset, reverb, chorus, pan, and volume, so you really don't need to micro every new one?
Heck, if you did do an oboe/english horn and used local transposition instead of the instrument change stuff, I don't see the problem as long as its labeled properly? Maybe you like the oboe soundfonts better, why would it matter? It plays back the right notes, looks good, and a performer can read it as intended.
I'm going to not understand elsewhere now, sorry for the book.
In reply to An oboe/english horn double… by Laurelin
You're right that we seem to be miscommunicating, but I'm not sure how to be clearer. I'll try again, though:
Channels are free. Just add the instrument change, get the transposition correct, and ignore the extra mixer channel. It doesn't hurt anything. And it's there in case you want to select a different sound for whatever reason). Yes, in the very rare cases where there are lots of instrument changes in the same score, you ahve lots of channels - and they are still free, and you still can ignore them, and you can still select different sounds if you want.
And yes, in MuseScore 3, you can set the parameters for all channels of an instrument at once.
When I said if it has a different transposition, it's a different instrument, I mean "instrument" in the abstract sense. More particular, in the sense used by MuseScore or any other software program, as opposed to physical objects. Horn in E and Horn in F are different MuseScore instruments regardless of whether any given player chooses to play those parts on two physically different instruments or whether he or she chooses to use a crook. It's a different instrument in the MsueScore sense, that's how you get the different transpositions. No new instrument, no new transposition, simple as that.
Adding an instrument change adds a channel for the exact reason I've already stated - because even though you might be changing to an instrument that happens to use the same sound, you just as likely (rather more likely, actually) will be changing to an instrument with a different sound, and thus you'll need the new channel to set that sound. Eg, changing from saxophone to flute in a big band chart.
I'd encourage you to actually try this all out, both with 2.3.2 and with 3.0, so you can understand what I am saying better. Then if you still have questions, go ahead and attach a sample score and explain the specific problem - much easier to communicate accurately that way as opposed to talking in generalities..
In reply to You're right that we seem to… by Marc Sabatella
I'm going to take this and the collective consensus that Wagner was a crazy person and try it with Goetterdaemmerung, probably the funeral march. It'll at least be entertaining.
I really wish Wagner had the decency to title things individually in his scores. Tchaikovsky barely ever only called things 'Scene' in his ballets. Wagner can't seem to call anything any more specific than 'Vorspiel und Scene', 'Scene', or 'Aufzug'. Makes things kind of a pain to pull out of a 12 hour opera.