Why doesn't MuseScore3 allow to turn a staff (already created) to a linked one?

The concept of “linked staves” now used in MuseScore is too narrow and rigid (and even ambiguous) that is why I advice you to extend or replace it with the following additional arguments.

1. For example, when you add a “linked staff” to a treble staff (with piano sound) from the “Instruments dialog” of MuseScore, MuseScore adds an additional score written in bass clef an reproduces to that 2nd staff all that all that you write for the 1st staff (dedicated to the right hand). There’s really no purpose in this automatic behaviour and the “linked” term is ambiguous and creates confusion. I recommend you to use the term “mirror staff”, because this rigid functionality (generally useful when only writing with staves plus tablatures). Two columns will be then needed: the “Mirrored” column and the “Linked column” in the “Instruments dialog”: OR you may just need to rename “linked” to “mirrored” (because “linked” staves all appear under the same parent-instrument in the “Instruments” dialog).

2. You should preserve the more general and flexible “linked” concept (and build a “Link”/”Un-link” tool) to any instrument with two or more staves that are conceptually linked (as explained next). The two staves of a piano score aren’t quite “independent”/separated as you say (they just have separate content), but they are actually “linked” (in the profound musical sense, which sense should be kept in MuseScore too) because they generally respect the same sequence of time signatures (TSs), the same tempo, the same key etc (and obviously work from the same purpose: to create a unitary piano musical piece, not to parallel sub-pieces).

3. It was obvious for me from the 1st version of MuseScore (and I hope you admit it!) that MuseScore imitates Sibelius in a huge number of aspects (including imitating the key shortcuts, which was very useful because MuseScore progressively gained popularity among Sibelius users like me also because of this mimetics).

4. One rapid solution to this problem is to allow the CTRL+SHIFT+up/down arrow key-combination to ALSO work between the staves of distinct instruments: this is a facile workaround, although the introduction of the two distinct concepts of “mirrored” staves and “linked” staves is mandatorily (in my opinion) to be implemented in a future more mature version of MuseScore (closer to the profound musical meanings of the two terms/concepts).

5. Another related bug in MuseScore is when you add a “linked” staff to a double-staff piano score: the linked staff automatically imitates the 1st piano staff (the treble staff of the piano) and the user isn’t allowed to chose what staff to imitate. When I select the bass staff of a piano score and click the “Add Linked stave/staff” button (from the “Instruments dialog”) the newly added linked staff becomes “mirrored/linked” to the 1st staff (although I’ve wanted to created a linked/mirrored staff for the bass line, NOT for the treble line of the piano). Additionally, when you create a “linked/mirror staff” for the treble or for the bass line of a piano score (or both), you should color the little “checked” mark with distinct colours to clearly indicate which staff is “linked/mirrored” to which, so that to allow both piano staves to have their own distinct “mirrored/linked” staff, if the users wants it.

6. You’ve not convinced me why not implementing distinct transposition rules for the left and right piano hands won’t be useful for a composer: I find them very useful and use them frequently, but by altering the clef (however, only treble clefs and bass clefs allow such 8va/8vb transposition; equivalent transpository variants for the alto and tenors clefs may also be useful).

7. I also recommend another future update of MuseScore: to create a simple editor in which to let the user design/personalize his/her own clef and rules of usage/transposition. It will be a great flexibility (Sibelius 7 has this, but doesn’t have the facility to establish the transposition rules).

Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com

Dear Mr. “jeetee”

1. Because “cross-hand techniques are not uncommon.” that is in fact an additional argument that the 2 staves of a piano scores should be treated as a unitary score and should be regarded as “linked” staves, but obviously NOT in the rigid sense of “mirrored” staves (as the MuseScore uses the term “linked” in the sense of “mirrored”).

2. Simple: I usually put a small indication at the beginning of the score “play right/left hand one/two octaves higher or lower than written” and avoid the use of very long 8va lines which tire my eyes even when put to invisible mode (you’ve already guessed). I prefer to use 8va/8vb and 15ma/15mb G-clef instead of long 8 line markings. As long as the two piano hands work in two distinct keys (which is an traditional excess in my opinion [and very repulsive to most children which learn the piano!] as long as the 15mb G-clef can easily replace the F-clef [see my G-clef piano project http://dragoii.com/gcp]), I don’t see why MuseScore doesn’t allow distinct octave-based transpository rules (in the same clef!) for the two hands of a piano score, at least for those written in G-clef.

3. From your last reply, it wasn’t quite clear to me to which past numbered arguments of mine you’ve brought your counter-arguments. I propose that you use the same numbering when answering my replies, so that to know to which argument of mine you exactly bring a counter-argument (that is the main purpose of why I number my arguments and/or counter-arguments).

Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com