More tools for formatting scores, separate dynamic channels for split voices/staffs, ...
I have been using Musescore for a while now and I noticed that these features really needed to be added:
1.) This is something that I believe needs immediate attention because it directly deals with the look of the score and isn't as specific as some things I may mention. This mostly applies to orchestral scores, but, nonetheless, the standard for orchestral scores is to scale down the size of the staves to fit more of them on the page in certain sections (mostly tuttis) of a piece when a lot of instruments are playing at a time and scale them back up when there are fewer instruments. Most notation software allows you to do this, but in Musescore, however, this is not possible (yet). You can only scale down all the pages, but not individual ones that actually need to be scaled down. This leads to immense amounts of wasted space, and, when catering to the pages with fewer instruments, this leads to staves going on off the page! Neither one of these scenarios are acceptable: especially the second one. I could think of some workarounds, but I honestly shouldn't have to because this should be a feature anyway. I have read the thread that was specifically about this, but it lead to inconclusivity.
Suggestion: With the system that's currently in place, allow the ability to manually select individual pages so that they can be scaled down, and even change individual paper sizes if needed. An automatic system could come later, but the manual one is much needed, even if it's only released as a beta.
2.) Less automation and more manual control. What Musescore has now is really decent, however, when it comes to specific placement (of elements), the automatic placement system interferes too much. Even with automatic placement "turned off", I still wouldn't be able to place elements where I would like them to be without them jumping out of position.
Suggestion: A system somewhat similar to how Microsoft Word (of all things) handles collisions, spacing, etc., would be wonderful, and, honestly, would put Musescore ahead of the race. I know that that is a lot to ask for, which is why I said similar in the beginning; even something slightly reminiscent of Word's system would be perfect.
3.) More control over the position of instrument names and brackets. I have no clue why they aren't already able to be moved wherever they are needed (although, it's somewhat understandable as to why they aren't), but they need to be moveable: instrument names, however, should be more prioritized. This deals with orchestral scores again. I would go on about the standard, but that point should be clear. There should also be a feature that automatically aligns it with the bracket. The aforementioned Microsoft Word placement systems would be of good use here. Also, changing one bracket shouldn't affect the rest of them.
Suggestion: "Separate" the instrument name from its staff so it isn't strictly conjoined to it and give it more variability--the same for brackets.
4."Flat" slurs and general sure shapes. There's not much to say. The shape of the slur should be able to be changed so that it has a "flat" top and a little more control should be had over the general shape of the slur.
-
When a voice/staff is split, the dynamics are automatically tied to each other. In the case of split voices, they should have their own dynamic channels that allow for dynamics to only be applied to that the specified voice. When staffs are split, however, this should always be the case, but it is not. Even, when the dynamics are changed to "Staff" they still tie to each other.
-
Updated mixer with more functions. The current mixer is okay, but it's begging to be updated. I can't think of anything specific, but insturments should be able to be grouped so that the mixer isn't so cluttered.
Comments
Thanks for your suggestions! In general, it better to make separate pposts for seaprate topcis, otherwise discussions quickly becomes difficult to follow. So I will reply just breifly here. Then if any of these points seem worth further discussion, I encourage you to start new threads.
Regarding 1, I definitely agree there should someday be a way to apply style and other settings to individual ages or other regions.
Regarding 2, I'm not understanding,. What are you saying happening automatically even with automatic placement turned off? That sounds like a possible bug. Best to start a new thread, attach your score, and precise steps to reproduce the problem you are seeing.
3 is also a good idea but complex in that instrument names are generated on the fly. Consider, there might be an instrument name on the eighth system sof a piece, beginning with measure twenty. Then the layout of the piece changes and measure 20 no longer starts a system, it's actually now on system ten. What happens then? not saying it's unsolvable, but it's not trivial.
4-6 have been requested before, and improvements are already being worked on.
1) Are you saying that on pages where there are fewer instruments, that you what to be able to adjust the size of the music to fit more or less on a page? This would seem jarring to me. As a conductor, I prefer to see all the instruments all the time, anyway.
2) What things don't stay were you put them?
3) What standard is that?
4) Shapes of slurs are adjustable.
5) This is a common request. I'm not sure if other notation software allows this. I own Sibelius, not really interested in testing this as I don't need this capability. Any notation software is not primarily for playback. When playback is more important, I have two scores. One I would hand to real players, and one that I do whatever is needed to, to get the playback I want. This would include splitting voices to different staves to get different dynamics.
6) I agree.
In reply to 1) Are you saying that on… by bobjp
1.) In the first example (Lohengrin - Ex.1( these refer to the file names)) you can see all of the instruments and some have empty staves, which is normal, but in the second example (Lohengrin - Ex.2), which is the page immediately after, you can see that the number of instruments playing has drastically decreased and the measures/page has been scaled up and spaced to avoid wasting space and to improve readability.
In the second example (Eine Alpeinsinfonie - Ex.1), you can see we're at the staring page and this time there are no empty staves; take note of the spacing, scaling, etc. The next example (Eine Alpeinsinfonie - Ex.2) is, however, still within the replication abilities of Musescore and the same can be said of the proceeding one (Eine Alpeinsinfonie - Ex.3), but both of these really push the bounds of what Musescore is capable of. The last example (Eine Alpeinsinfonie - Ex.4) would not be possible in Musescore without either A.) the staves going off the page, or B.) scaling down the spacing of the entire score creating unnecessary white space, diminishing consistency, diminishing legibility, and, also, just making look bad. The simple solution would be to scale down/space just one page so everything of the eachother: the pages should be independent of each other but still connected.
2.) Slurs, dynamics, some elements from the master pallette, lines, etc. I could try to explain what's happening, but it would be better for me to screen record it so you could actually see what's happening; i'll try to do that later.
3.) Instrument names centered on brackets. This first example (Brackets - Ex.1) shows this and can definitely be done in Musescore. The second (Brackets Ex.2) and the third (Brackets Ex.3) examples could still be done, but in the second example, it would be tedious to copy and paste I. & II. for every measure that they're needed, not to mention other instruments that may need it as well, and in the third example, it wouldn't look as clean in and there would be more negative space Musescore than it would in the example. The fourth (Brackets - Ex.4) and fifth (Brackets Ex.5) examples would not be possible in Musescore. I do admit that the fifth example is more of a rare occurrence, but the fourth example is within reasonability and is, as such, fairly common. In the last example (Brackets -, Ex.6), which is from a project that im currently working on, it shows why the ability to move the instrument names should be possible. The reason why the instrument names aren't centered is because the instruments are completely separate. I wanted each staff to have it's own dynamic channel and I would have simply split the staff in the 'Instruments' panel, but doing so would have caused the dynamic channels to "stick" together and I wouldn't have been able to change the dynamics of each separate staff. A lot of the problems are interwoven and could be fixed if just one is fixed.
4.) They are adjustable, but they are still somewhat lacking. The examples ( Slurs - Ex.1 and Ex.2) showcase slur shapes that would not be possible in Musescore. Another example (Slurs Ex.3) from one of my own scores shows the current limitations.
5.I already have a workaround for it, but since you already know about said workaround, it becomes very tedious with lots of unnecessary time being spent when the general ideal of split staff dynamics is fairly simple.
6.Encore
In reply to 1.) In the first example … by Marsillais F. …
I admit to being a grumpy old man about some things.
1) I can see where this might be desirable to some. I get it. But to me, seeing things larger and more legible on one page and smaller and less legible on the next is not what I would want. Besides, the oboe was the second staff on this page, but is first on the next. Then forth on another because there are now three flute parts.
3) Brackets Ex 6 is doable. It just depends on how badly you want it.
4) I made slurs ex 1 without issue. Did I miss something? Tied the whole note to the quarter. Then slurred the triplet to the quarter.
5) Again, it just depends on how badly you want usable playback. DAW users spend weeks and months or more working on playback for a single piece. Notation users have to work harder and never get as good results.
![tie-2.png]( "tie-2.png")