If the Composer, Author rights and Arrangement are the same, how will people know?
I have a choir score in which the Composer, Author rights and Arrangement name are the same.
If the name will be the same, how will people know what name represents what?
And also, I also need to give credit to who it is that arranged the score, there isn't a field for that now, could you please implement it please?
And also, what good is it to have 3 random names on the score if there is nothing to say what the name is before, how will people know which of the three names stand for composer, copyrights or arrangement.
Thanks!
Comments
I explicitly add "text: ", "music: ", "arr.: " and "(c) " to indicate which is which. Sometimes I use more than one line in each of these entries, e.g. "text: foomusic: bar" This is not possibloe in the wizzared though, so somethun g to fix after the score has been created
I do that, too, but only in the cases where there is ambiguity. There are universally agreed upon standards for the placement of title (top center) and composer (top right), so for scores on which those are the only fields present on the score, it would be superfluous to include any labels for the fields. But if I wish to include composer and lyricist separately, or list an arranger (eg, myself), then I do so by editing the fields in question to include labels. I can't see that it would hurt to add fields to the new score wizard for Arranger, and have it display by default below the composer name (the usual standard placement), but I don't think I'd want it labeling the field for me. As I'd want to be in control of whether it said "arranged by:" versus "arr." versus "transcribed by:" or "trans." versus "edited by" or "ed.", etc.
See, that's why I'm saying this.
Every person who can read a score can understand the title, but it again is not that obvious that the person on the right is the composer and the person on the left is the arranger or lyricist, unless there is some kind of standard abbreviation before it so people can tell.
Not to mention the one at the bottom of the page, how is anyone going to know what that one stands for?
Those 'standard abreviations' would depend on the language of the user.
That's no problem, the community could translate that into their own languages, that's no problem!
This is REALLY needed!
It's not like people are always up-to-date with international rulings on score stuff...
and then have to change it again, just because that one score is for an audience speaking a different language....
Yup, the whole score is supposed to be completely translated in the native language of the performers.
How's that gonna work for a printed score or a PDF?
Works well, there's plenty of space!
The mezzo-soprano ambitus includes the alto if I read that clearly... I never liked the word Alto, how old IS that notation anyways?
??? I meant the translation to the language if the reader
Looks like you mixed this up with another thread?
Yup, I need a break... :D LOL sorry...
Though the "there's enough space" was for this thread!
The convention of listing composers to the top right is universal. All professionally published scores do this; no additional info is needed to identify the person listed at top right as the composer. If you feel like producing non-professional-looking scores, you are of course free to add unnecessary information there yourself, but MuseScore shouldn't do this by default. As I said, it's only in the cases where you wish to list *more than one person* on the right that you might need to label who did what, but again, MuseScore already lets you do that, so I don't see the problem. tht is, the feature to allow you to add a label is already there. If there were standardized labels, then it might make sense for MuseScore to add them automatically, but there just aren't.
Marc, do you realize that the expression of this international convention is unobvious to say the least?
What about cases in which 2 of the three fields belong to the same person and the 3rd is someone else. How is the reader going to know what belongs to what then?
A small abbreviation before whatever that is would be perfect, if not a title above it. There's plenty of space to do that the way MuseScore handles stuff.
As I said, if you feel that in your particualr score, you need to add labels, just add them yourself. That way you are in charge of when they appear and when they don't, and also you are in charge of how the labels are worded. How is that a problem?
The only problem is I don't have the fourth field.
Consider a score that has:
One liricist (as in, who composed the lyrics)
A different composer (as in, who composed the song/theme originally)
A different "arranger" (as in, who arranged the score after the song/theme that the original composer made)
A different copyrights holder. (as in, who holds the current copyright to all of the above)
When you guys put all of these 4 fields on the score, how is anyone going to know what is what?
That international "whatever" ruling lacks one basic thing: credit to who arranged the score.
So, that is why I think as I have stated above and in previous comments.
We must be misunderstanding something on a very basic level, because I don't get how what you're describing is even the slightest bit difficult currently. If you want four names, *just type them*. If you want labels, to appear, *just type them*. So for instance, open the attached score, which took me all of about 15 seconds to create. Do you have any difficulty telling who the composer is, who the lyricist is, who the arranger is, who the translator is, who the editor is, or who the copyright holder is? I just don't understand the problem you are trying to solve here. if you would rather it say "Composed by" instead of "Comp.", then *just type that*. Whatever label you want, *just type it*.
NOT FOUND: 2
As for the standard, as I tried to explain, that is for cases where the compsoer is the only name that appear. look at any professionally published sheet music and you see the composers name at top right with no label next to the name identifying him/her as the composer. As I have also explained, it is the cases where there are multiple names involved where you might want to add a label, but MuseScore already allows you to add these labels, in any form you like. Again, there just isn't a problem here that I can see. Anything you want to do, you already can do, in a matter of seconds.
This discussion is very interesting but does not belong to the issue tracker. If you are filling an issue or a feature request and the title is a question then it doesn't belong to the issue tracker. For the sake of clarity, please, use the forum for discussion and the issue tracker for constructed and clear bug report/feature request.
So this feature request not being one, and despite the discussion being interesting... I close it.
I think the confusing thing for people is the fact that the "Issue tracker" is called an "Issue tracker".
If it would be called a "Bug tracker", it would be more clear for everyday good people who want to contribute towards this project.
Marc, what I'm trying to say is that all of what you wrote there could be standardized inside MuseScore.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Issues == bug reports + feature requests + tasks
And the only thing that can get international standardized is the ©, everything else would have to be different as per language of score writer or score reader and as such basically done manually
If the structure is there, it will complete itself due to users who care. :D
The structure is there already (and since long): fileds exist for Composer, Author rights and Texter.
Arranger is missing though.
I'm talking of a better structure, one that would be obvious.
There is no arbitrary reason for why someone would realise that the name written to the right side of the title is the composer and the name to the left of the title is whatever else it is...
Therefore, The fields need to label themselves.
International rulings are more like decisions based on what people generally come in agreement with even though there is no logical inherent reason for that to be so, hence, labels are needed, and, it would be tiresome for everyone to enter them themselves just because there are so many languages in the world.
MuseScore should do that on it's own, just implement the structure to that which I have already written above and people will translate it.
English first, then everything else.
Who wouldn't be passionate about free stuff that is perfect? :D
The 'New score wizzard' asks you for these, what could be more obvious?
I'm talking from the point of view of someone reading the score, not from the point of view of me creating the score. :)
Wasn't this closed? Shouldn't it be moved?
Yes. If anyone wants to discuss the matter further (eg, to try to make a case why a change should be made), then I for one am happy to continue the discussion - in the forum.