Music editing - MuseScore

[MrGongGong]

I agree - I would have thought so. Indeed I suspect some composers actually plan things, before even creating any "notes". Who knows how Sibelius was developed, but Musescore would appear to have been designed/developed bottom up - which would explain why it has problems with glueing big chunks together and rearranging them.

That's what I use score editing software for in the first place
Yes, things are planned
BUT part of the process involves working on things which get added to a larger score
if that's not possible (or you can't edit the large score, add or take away instruments or sections) then it's useless

Are you sure this is the case ?

One of the selling points of Sibelius used to be how swiftly it would deal with massive scores...

[Dave2002]

That's what I use score editing software for in the first place
Yes, things are planned
BUT part of the process involves working on things which get added to a larger score
if that's not possible (or you can't edit the large score, add or take away instruments or sections) then it's useless

Are you sure this is the case ?

One of the selling points of Sibelius used to be how swiftly it would deal with massive scores...

I don't know enough about the developers of MuseScore. Presumably they were trying to make something a bit like Sibelius - maybe as an Open Source project - and also maybe as an alternative to some expensive software. If they were just trying to get a few sheets ready to go, they have clearly achieved that. Indeed, it does seem to be possible to make large scores - but I guess it was only once they'd worked out how to do one piece that they thought about joining them together. This can be done in a clunky way by cut, copy and paste, so in MuseScore 2 they developed Albums which do allow ready made pieces to be joined together - though there may be restrictions - such as number of instruments (same?), actual instruments (same?) etc. Clearly there seem to have been some bugs, so when they produced MuseScore 3 they may have tried to address some of the implementation issues, but to date these haven't been fixed. Consequently the album feature isn't availabe in MS 3, which makes it hopeless for more complex pieces, or for people whose workflow relies heavily on reshaping by arranging "pieces"/"fragments"/"segments".

The recommendation seems to be to use MuseScore 2 - if one wants to work that way - which isn't over helpful, as installing MS 3 as well will generally cause mscz files to be opened in MS 3 as a default, thus requiring some care with versions - both using the same file types for the music files. Most people will probably assume, as I did that MS 3 is the later and better version. People may only discover this - as I did - after having created some short works.

Re changing instruments or adding instruments in a single score - that's feasible and works. However, I don't know if it's possible to change an instrument within a stave - which I suspect might be needed in some scores - instructing a player to change instrument - and if a virtual instrument library is used with the score writing software - the generated sounds would change accordingly.

I wouldn't dismiss MuseScore completely for people new to this sort of thing. I think some people have managed to import or create some quite large scores - but they may have had to use special techniques and workarounds for some scores.

[MrGongGong]

If I can't import the whole of Götterdämmerung and change the Wagner Tuba parts to Ukelele's then i'm out

[Dave2002]

I think some people have managed to import or create some quite large scores - but they may have had to use special techniques and workarounds for some scores.

Someone has created a score for Holst's Planets - which works in MuseScore 2, but not in MS 3.

[Dave2002]

If I can't import the whole of Götterdämmerung and change the Wagner Tuba parts to Ukelele's then i'm out

Why not try castanets?

[cloughie]

Why not try castanets?

Kenton used bongos!

[Dave2002]

This seems a very basic and simple thing that one would do frequently
Can you do this with Dorico ?

I found this about Dorico - called Flows in that system - https://www.steinberg.help/dorico/v1...s_flows_c.html

There is a free version of Dorico, called Dorico SE, but it only supports 2 staves. Dorico Elements might be a reasonable buy - it can support around a dozen staves (instruments). Dorico does seem to be reasonably good, though anyone who wants to write huge scores might have to pay premium prices, of use a cheaper tool and put up with some limitations.

https://new.steinberg.net/dorico/se/ Dorico SE

https://www.steinberg.net/en/shop/dorico.html

https://new.steinberg.net/dorico/trial/ Free Trial - 30 days

[Boilk]

An amusing (and technically accomplished) review of MuseScore, by the same chap who ranted about his pet Sibelius hates.

[Dave2002]

An amusing (and technically accomplished) review of MuseScore, by the same chap who ranted about his pet Sibelius hates.

Very good. I agree about the soloing, and the instrument changes. It probably is more work than using Sibelius or Dorico, but the freeness of it is very appealing. Also, the repository of other user’s works to plunder ... oh, I mean “borrow” is very useful, and can sometimes save a lot of time. The horror touches might appeal to film buffs!

[Suffolkcoastal]

I've had few problems creating large scores in Musescore. Three of my recent works include 30+ parts and last up to an hour. Once you get used to the software you can find little tricks to use. It probably helps though that I tend to compose directly into full score hearing it all in my head first. So the software is fine for me. I can appreciate that arranging & copying & pasting large sections can be a little time consuming however.

[Dave2002]

That's interesting. I'm not familiar enough with other systems to know whether some of the annoyances which I've found with Musescore are also in those, or whether what I see as annoyances do in fact have workarounds which I've not figured yet.

One is apparently not being able to work on one line, or group of instruments, in a large score. Maybe this has been dealt with on the Musescore forums, but suppose one decides on a full score to start, but then only wants the strings to play for the first 50 bars, then only one other solo instrument to come in for 20 bars, then a further gap with strings only for another 30 bars then finally the full shebang for 100 bars etc. Is that possible, or does one just have to put up with the pain of dealing with a full score when for some bars that is not necessary? The navigation panel can help, but sometimes just having less space to deal with could be helpful.

Is there a workaraound, and do other notation tools such as Dorico and Sibelius not have this kind of problem? For me, despite the problems, I'm amazed that tools like Musescore and the others work at all, and being able to hear even a pale imitation of the final result with the playing features is great.

[MrGongGong]

I've had few problems creating large scores in Musescore. Three of my recent works include 30+ parts and last up to an hour. Once you get used to the software you can find little tricks to use. It probably helps though that I tend to compose directly into full score hearing it all in my head first. So the software is fine for me. I can appreciate that arranging & copying & pasting large sections can be a little time consuming however.

Are you sticking with Musescore because the other options are too expensive ?
It sounds to me that you would benefit from software that is able to deal with large scores easily

If it's £ you need
let's have a whip-round for you

One is apparently not being able to work on one line, or group of instruments, in a large score.

WTF (as my offspring would say)

One of the bits of work i'm doing at the moment involves Beta Testing a piece of audio software, it is extraordinary how really obvious things are often overlooked...

[Dave2002]

The crowd funding idea for suffolkcoastal would be something I could contribute to. If I decide I need a better tool I can afford one - but then the question is "which one?"

Re the large score thing - it's probably easiest to have all the instruments in at first, but then it's possible to hide instruments, making it easier to see what's going on on pages where those instruments aren't needed. What I don't know (yet) is whether Musescore will screw up when those instruments are needed. I'll check.

Just tried, and it looks as though if you select a bunch of instruments on one page and make them invisible, it makes them invisible on other pages where the instruments are playing!

The alternative approach of starting minimalist and then adding instruments does seem painful, and I suspect that Musescore would then generate empty pages. Indeed that is what it seems to do. Take a score with (say) 130-140 bars, and try to put a triangle in on the last page - assuming that the triangle isn't there already. It then puts the line for that instrument on all the pages, right back to the start. Sometimes that might actually be useful, but probably not when trying to put things together.

Re

One is apparently not being able to work on one line, or group of instruments, in a large score.

that's only partly true, but the workarounds are a bit tedious. This was pointed out in the video - at least as regards playing a rendition of that section - which can be done by using the mixer feature, but that's really not a great way to do things. Also, sometimes it might be useful to work on one section/group of instruments, without being distracted by the rest and without bothering with a sound representation.

I suppose different people have their own ways of working. Some may know exactly what they want to write down, or what sounds they want to achieve, and will either go straight to a notation tool, or maybe bypass that and go to a DAW, but others may adopt a more experimental approach. Try something, then see what it looks like, and then try it for sound, and then ....

One interesting comment in that video was that if one puts comments in, they might get picked up by the Musescore development team, and sometimes features can be changed very quickly. So might be worth anyone reading this putting in a few suggestions in the comments at the end of that video.

[MrGongGong]

Just tried, and it looks as though if you select a bunch of instruments on one page and make them invisible, it makes them invisible on other pages where the instruments are playing!

So, just to be clear, if I have a score where (for example) the brass have 40 bars rest before coming in, I can't have the brass parts hidden until they come in ?

Not exactly an unusual thing to need....just about every orchestral score does that....

[Dave2002]

So, just to be clear, if I have a score where (for example) the brass have 40 bars rest before coming in, I can't have the brass parts hidden until they come in ?

Not exactly an unusual thing to need....just about every orchestral score does that....

Maybe it's hidden in the fine print, but I've not succeeded in doing that yet. I'll ask on another forum.

One thing in the video was mentioned, which may be less usual in classical music scores, is the change instrument on a stave, or part. For example, in a flute part, there might be an instruction to change to piccolo, and vice versa. I think this kind of change is much more common in theatre bands, where some players may actually be playing different kinds of instruments.