Easier way to ADD additional Staff (Staves) - NOT IN THE ENTIRE SCORE

• Jul 5, 2015 - 12:31

As a copyist is very common to add an additional staff here and there for suggestions purposes or additional variation, just added temporary ... NOT IN THE ENTIRE SCORE
Adding an additional staff just for a few measures or staves should be easier ... for example:

it would be easier just if with "Split Staff" option would have the additional options "Selected Staves or measures" and/or "Entire Score" ...

Thanks

Comments

• Jul 5, 2015 - 13:24

Thank you for your reply
Yes in part, I appreciate your examples, great!!

But what about for example I have a Lead-sheet (Just melody and Chord changes) Treble clef only..
Then:
I want to add to the intro melody a staff with bass example, just lets say the first 4 bars ... easy way "Split staff" ... then I get it for the entire part ... and then fill notes bass clef ... and then fill treble clef staff some how ... or then "Never hide empty staff" ... and then ... and then .. "Hide empty staves" ...
Too much ... should be easier, I mean less steps involved ...

Reply

• Jul 5, 2015 - 13:30

Yes is a long answer procedure ... before that there should be selected, then filled with notes or slashes or what ever ... what if other staves are empty by then ... we got to worry about those ... yes there is "never hide when empty..." but should do that for each individual part staff ... and so .. and so ..
Why not just a single step like "Split Staff..." then option "Selected" or "Entire" ...

Reply

• Jul 5, 2015 - 17:32

What do you mean other staves? I thought you were talking about a lead sheet? They typically have just one or two staves. You shouldn't need the "never hide" option at all when creating a lead sheet. The "hide empty staves" option should work perfectly and easily, and is actually *fewer* steps than the method you describe if you might need the extra staff on more than one system (eg, for both an intro and an interlude or coda). And if you are literally using it only once, the fact that the hide empty staves method takes a couple of extra clicks for something you only need to do once shou;d not be a big deal.

Reply

• Jul 6, 2015 - 00:51

... boy here we go .. the "Hide Empty Staves" will hide "ALL EMPTY STAVES" as far as I know, unless there is "another hidden weird way to do it" ... it will hide my staves that I might need to be present somewhere else, but just for the fact they are empty they disappear ...
... so in consequence I got to worry about things I should not for the simple matter of just adding a stave here and there .. with the present method (Hide Empty Staves) I have to make sure the main ones are "Never hidden" and then "Hide Empty Staves ..." ... what if I have a long score with multiple parts ... then I would be worry about hiding empty staves somewhere else that I need present (concern that shouldn't be added just because adding a temporary 4 bar stave some where) ... simple should be kept simple ..
.. then find out at expensive rehearsal hours that a tuba part bars are missing ... just to mention one possible consequence ...
I'm talking about any situation where an extra temporary stave come handy, not just lead-sheet ..
at this stage of software evolution they should be more intuitive and friendly user "Hide Empty Staves" is not intuitive and friendly user from my perspective.
Thank you for your input, I appreciate it.

Reply

• Jul 6, 2015 - 03:56

I think you are misunderstanding how "hide empty staves" works. There is no danger whatsoever that you would discover missing bars in the tuba part at a rehearsal. Bars are never deleted from parts just because the score doesn't show an empty line. It works exactly as it should, and how published "condensed scores" have been published for centuries. Empty staves are suppressed by the score, but the parts are always complete. So I think you are worrying about something unnecessarily.

And thinking about the condensed score case, doing it the way you suggest would be *much* more work. You'd constantly be having to split staves to add parts where needed, and having to redo it every time you change you mind about an entrance or an exit. Really, it would not be feaible at all. The current system handles this case far more efficiently and naturally. And since it also handles the lead sheet case, why invent a second way to do largely the same thing, and then make people worry about which method to use in which situation and what might happen if they mixed methods? The program is easier to learn and easier to support if it works consistently - perform similar tasks similar ways and get simialr results.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible to implement an alternate method, or that there is no chance MuseScore would ever support such a thing, but I think you are misunderstanding how "hide empty staves" works if you think it would actually cause problems with parts. And I think you are missing the bigger picture - the fact that this method really *is* very much superior in a large numbr of cases, and only a couple of clicks slower in the lead sheet case.

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 00:32

No, I think you are the one missing the main point here in this post, I don’t buy what you are selling me … not one bit of it …
…and Yes, “Hide Empty Staves…” did hide my empty staves I needed to be present … so I had to deal with other resources and features in MuseScore to solve this, adding time consuming steps … and it shouldn’t be that way … technology was created to “facilitate” our work, technology should serve man kind, not the other way around …
The main point here is to suggest better; easier; “natural”; intuitive ways to work with this software, less time consuming and distractive as the method you mention … precisely the main reason of this post is to suggest a BETTER way than the one you propose, which is so far the one stablished by the software mechanics … (as far as I know).
Yes MuseScore has come a long way, even better than the first Finale versions I tried years back .. not for that reason we should stop try to suggest better functionalities to improve it …
…I understand there are people that once they get used to and learn awkward ways develop a tendency to believe it is the right or logical way of doing and working things out, but we have to be able to differentiate from what the program let us do things as it was programmed and learn its intricacies (if we intend to use it as a regular tool) from the way things should be.
I believe at this point in time, this procedure could be improved and made more common sense … but is just a suggestion, not mandatory, the developers can take or leave it, is up to them, as our choice of working with any software as a regular tool or otherwise keep searching one that suits our needs.

Why I made this post? because I believe it can EASILY be improved … than the existing one “Hide Empty Staves…”

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 00:59

When I said I thought you were missing something, I am specifically referring to your comment about missing bars in a tuba part. That quite simply does *not* happen when using this option as intended. Used correctly, there is no risk of wasting time in a rehearsal - quite the contrary, it is specifically optimzied to do *precisely* the correct thing when creating a condesned score, easily and automatically. If you ended up with missing bars in a tuba part, please open a new thread, post the score you are having problems with and precise step by step instructions to reproduce the problem, and we will help you see what you did wrong. But I am guesisng you simply misunderstood, and worried needlessly that a hidden staff in the condensed score would somehow result in missing bars in the part. Again, I assure you, *this does not happen* when using this option as intended.

Anayhow, once more, I recognize this is not the only way things could possibly work. All I can do is reiterate what I have said, in different words:

The current system works *perfectly* for condensed scores, and *well enough* for the case of a random temporary staff. The method you suggest would indeed work *better* for random temporary staves, but would work *not at all* for condensed scores. So if we were to implement your suggestion, we would need to support both methods. Not out of the question, but it just seems unnecessary complexity to have two different inconsistent ways of accomplishing the same thing.

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 01:39

The way I see it both can coexist perfectly fine, the more options the better ... I suggested this functionality can be added to "Split Staff" (for Selected measures or Entire Score) and is much much easier, faster, simpler and logical... (analogical to hand writing a score) then "Hide Empty Staves..." could be used if necessary ...

As I see it "Hide Empty Staff..." brings another problem ... just to mention some more, is that once selected it would move my entire lay out, rehearsal marks, chord changes, bar and note separations, lyrics, texts, repeat marks, bar spacings ... and so ..

"Hide Empty Staves..." is a very useful tool that should be kept, but not very practical for adding a temporary Staff or staves ... as it itself expresses "Hide Empty Staves..." is Hide empty staves, it does not say "Add specific Staves..." just were I need them ...

NOTE: Another feature that could be improved is "Bar Spacing" , all this features have been improved in an app for iPad ... I don't have the app name at hand, once you check it out, it would be more clear what I'm trying to suggest ... MuseScore should follow that example in such methods ..

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 05:23

OK, we are closer to agreement :-)

I definitely agree that for temporary extra staves, a more direct method would be nice, and it's definitely worth considering. Especially if it were limited to a second staff on an existing instrument (as oppsoed to a new instrument entirely), it might not be too big of a change. One of the things on the list of possibilities for 2.1 - something that would be several months off at least - is the ability to change transposition or other staff properties mid-score. This seems related enough that it could possibly piggy-back on some of the same mechanisms.

Where we disagree is about how difficult Hide Empty actually is in practice in the real world situations where it tends to be needed. I can see how if you have a score for many instruments and also need a temporary one, you would need to set Never hide for the others, and this would take a little extra time. But I don't see that as a common use case compared to condensed scores in which you *want* the empty staves always hidden, and lead sheets in which there won't be an any other empty staves to worry about. In these common cases, Hie empty staves actually works quite well, even if there areother less common cases where you need to combine it with "Never hide" and therefore it takes a little longer.

And I don't understand what you mean about moving layout - the result of using hide empty staves are *exactly* the same as what they would be if the temporary staff were added via the mechanism you suggest. Nothing should move in any unexpected or inappropriate ways. Could be worth starting a new thread in which you psot the specific score you are having problems with and explaining the precise step by step instructions that lead to the case you are concerned about.

Also could be worth starting a new thread with specific examples to explain what you mean about "bar spacing". MuseScore's spacing algorithms are pretty standard, following the same commonly-accepted engraving standards used by most other programs. There are differences here and there of course, but in general, spacing should be exceelent, better than most of competing programs in fact.

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 08:51

-First of all, because most programs .. using your own words "..following the same commonly-accepted engraving standards used by most other programs" ... is quite adventurous a generalisation ... then again if most do it in similar way it doesn't mean is acceptable or is the most convenient way, one thing does not relate to the other ... people tend to concur to available possibilities , then again, available possibilities does not mean right, correct, practical, logical, democratic, reflect general acceptance or friendly user...
I think I've been pretty clear ... For example in Finale if you move, hide a bar or staff it would move the whole page elements, in order to avoid it you had to "Lock" the page elements (which came handy), so what ever change made would not affect the placing of elements ....
Same here on MuseScore, if you move one bar, add staves or hide a staff it would affect all placed elements to fit to the new empty space .... thats pretty obvious I think, specially if we give the right importance to "form" as opposed to music styles that form is somehow secondary ...
Of course I leave it "Automatic" but here and there I like to make adjustments that suits my aesthetic and presentation.. always keeping in mind, and as a goal, to keep thing as easy and informative as possible to the reader ...
I don't know if you encounter the need to widen a bar (measure) or move a bar itself (the line that separates, divides staves in measures) just to make room for notes the way you dare want it, I do it frequently, also some times if I don't like the spacing between notes here and there, so I change their distances one another, or might be just to make fit lyrics better to notes and measures (bars), without changing the number of measure in a staff, I place my rehearsal marks in a specific position depending on how many things fall in place... and so, on and on ... all this little adjustments get disrupted if you add a staff (specially as it is in the whole score or part) and then again when you "hide empty staves.." (then agin specially as it is in the whole score or part) ... that affects the whole part or score, it displaces "things" right? got it?
-Secondly I don't have any problem with MuseScore, I'm just making a suggestion with this thread ... nothing else, exerting my own right to understanding and proposing if I may ..
NOTE: spacing should be drag and drop or select and <- -> (arrows) in addition to the present format with inspector and properties... also would be nice if repeat bars could be thicken or move the distance of its elements (bar, line and dots size), same for double bar lines ... that would be another topic, which at this moment I don't know if it is possible doing with ver 2.0.1
As you said "that for temporary extra staves, a more direct method would be nice, and it's definitely worth considering..." and ..."it might not be too big of a change." EXACTLY

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 15:23

The layout stuff you are talking about seems unrelated, and I don't understand the problem you are perceiving. If measures move, then of course the things attached to those measure move with it - that's exactly what *needs* to happen or now things will appear to be attached to the wrong place.

So if you are seeing some specific case where somehow incorrect results are resulting from some formastting change, agaiun, please start a new thread, attach the specific score you are having problems with, and give precise step by step instructions to reproduce the problem. But I'm not aware of any issues in which things move improperly - everything works as expected for me.

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 15:56

would be nice if repeat bars could be thicken or move the distance of its elements (bar, line and dots size), same for double bar lines

On that, at least, we have good news for you. The controls are in the Barlines section of the General Style pane: Style -> General…

Reply

• Jul 7, 2015 - 23:58

Yes !! good that works !! thank you
Although this is not the subject of this thread, thanks for giving a 90% satisfactory answer ... appreciated ... the way you describe works good in a general manner (only dot properties missing).
NOTE: in addition, would be nice if it could be done just by selecting the bar lines and repeats right on the music part or score, could have a possibility to be edited at the spot in particular that element alone (not only general), lets say "properties" and be able to edit thickness, distance and dot size (for repeats) ... I'm just saying it would be nice ...
Thanks again

Reply

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.