Instruments.xml file for 2.0
I have recently been doing some more work on the spreadsheet located at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArcZM0RQwkwSdHVObzE2MktxS0…
I have started a new thread as the old one was becoming rather unwieldy, but you can refer to it here:
http://musescore.org/en/node/17630
I am proposing that we define two new groups of instruments: Ethnic and Brass Band
There are also other things we neede to do to help compatibility with MusicXML 3.0 which you can find in the notes column of the spreadsheet.
I desperately need help with the percussion! Most of this belongs in the new Ethnic group I am proposing, and there are a multitude of drums and other percussion which I have no idea how to define, so if you can help in anyway with this, please let me have Google account details so I can add you to the list of editors!
I have now got as far as the Metal Music XML 3.0 Group of instruments.
Comments on progress so far would be helpful
Comments
Sorry for the late reply.
First, there is a feature request to make the instrument list searchable in the New Score wizard. I think it will help a lot. #18542: Make Create Instrument dialog searchable.
Creating smaller groups is ok. Maybe Ethnic can be even sorted between African and South American percussion?
In the meantime, I would like to point you to this post regarding Xylophone, in case you missed it: http://musescore.org/en/node/17811#comment-68156
In reply to Sorry for the late reply. by [DELETED] 5
I would not remove instruments in the file if they don't have any sound mapping in MusicXML. Drumset 3 lines is a nice shortcut to create a score with such a staff type. In the same area, I would add a "Treble clef" and "Bass clef" instrument in a first and separate category ("General")in order to be able to setup a simple score quickly. These two could default to piano, full range, empty instrument name. See http://musescore.org/en/node/9120
In reply to Instrument removal by [DELETED] 5
See this about the 3-line drumset.
I don't know if a bansuri comes under flute, but what about the harmonica?
Wind chimes aren't there either and I can't find an entry in General MIDI for it, or the bansuri.
For missing instruments, perhaps someone could go through soundfonts for hints?
In reply to See this about the 3-line by chen lung
Hi Michael
Are you able to include bansuri?
EDIT: I've seen a list , which includes this instrument. Perhaps there's others generally.
Where do you stand on this?
In reply to Hi MichaelAre you able to by chen lung
What is it??
I've never heard of a bansuri
In reply to Instrument removal by [DELETED] 5
As I mentioned the decision to remove 3 line drumset from the default list of instruments is not just driven by MusicXML 3
Standard drumkit notation appears to be always written on 5 lines. No source I have come across via Google has mentioned a 3 line system as the norm, including Lilypond:- http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Common-notati…
This suggests to me that it should no longer be in the default list. It will be easy enough to include 3 line percussion in the Staff Style dialogue for those users who wish to use it, and include a default drumset for them to use in the drm file section.
Personally I have neve seen a 3 line percussion system used. All percussion parts I have seen have been either single line or 5 line, but then percussion was only my 4th instrument at college, and it was a long time ago :)
Maybe percussion specialists could make their views known here?
In reply to As I mentioned the decision by ChurchOrganist
I have played a lot from three line staves, or grids, as they are also known, and I think they should be kept.
Regarding "drumset"/"drumkit", I would say that "drumset" is to be preferred in MuseScore. At the instrument shop you often talk about drumkits but in the practice room you play the drumset.
In reply to Three line staves by Magnus Johansson
They are being kept - you will just select them from the Stave Style menu rather than from a preset from the Instrument list.
Just reflecting the current status quo in drumkit notation - and also avoiding some confusion with MusicXML 3 ie import and export to/from.
In reply to They are being kept - you by ChurchOrganist
Good.
I just searched the internet using www.ixquick.com for "drumkit notation" and "drumset notation", and the former generated 5750 hits and the latter 6840. I maintain that "drumset" should be used in a notation program.
Is this relevant?: #13279: Change mezzosoprano to mezzo-soprano
In reply to Is this relevant?: #13279: by chen lung
Probably - I'll have a look next time I have some time get back on the case - been a horrible week this week what with the central heating packing up and having work disrupted by plumbers etc :(
Can this be reviewed?
In reply to Can this be reviewed? by chen lung
Yes it's one of those anomalies yet to be decided on, but there is an equivalent in MusicXML 3 so we can't just dump it.
Does anyone know anything about autoharps?
My knowledge is limited to pressing the bars and dragging my fingernail across to get a chord :)
And that they're a right bugger to tune :)
Can anyone supply me with accurate range information? A Google search has revealed that it is 3 octaves, but not which 3 octaves :)
In reply to Autoharp anyone? by ChurchOrganist
We just got this one in : https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/144
I can merge it but I guess it's good to align the spreadsheet first?
In reply to We just got this one in : by [DELETED] 5
I would prefer you to wait until the spreadsheet is done,
But providing this info goes into the spreadsheet there's no reason why it should be merged - I'm working on plucked instruments right now as it happens, so if I get some time tomorrow I will amend the mandola definition with this data - unless you get to it first Nicolas :)
In reply to I would prefer you to wait by ChurchOrganist
That pull request just had been merged, c8297d8
In reply to That pull request just had by Jojo-Schmitz
From my comment on the pull request:-
In actual fact there are apparently 2 tunings for the mandola - alto tuned the same as the viola and tenor - an octave lower than the mandolin. This will be reflected in the final version of Instruments.xml which is still in preparation.
In reply to From my comment on the pull by ChurchOrganist
I believe they are actually two different instruments: the mandola (tuned in C3) and the tenor mandola (tuned in G2).
In reply to Mandolas by Magnus Johansson
I have defined two different ones this morning.
In reply to From my comment on the pull by ChurchOrganist
Also that pull request did not consider the change of the string values (to G-D A-E, resp. 43, 50, 57 and 64)?
In reply to Also that pull request did by Jojo-Schmitz
No matter - it is done in the spreadsheet now, and so will ultimately end up in 2.0
Suggesting the following changes:
1. Handbells should use G 8va and F 8va clefs in their grand staff. (Shall look into this a little more, though.)
2. Marimba could be changed to aPitchRange 45-96 and pPitchRange 36-96.
3. Bass marimba should have pPitchRange 36-53.
4. The xylophone should have a G 8va clef. I know that the old tradition says that a treble clef shall be used, but what's the meaning of using a more obscure notation than required?
In reply to Changes by Magnus Johansson
As I said before in the other thread - given the range of a full set of handbells - MIDI 36 to 96 it doesn't seem appropriate to use octave clefs - the trebles would be continually in loads of ledger lines! It would also seem to negate the split point between high and low bells of Middle C. I was unable to find much satisfactory information about ranges, though, and am working purely from conjecture based on exisitng scores:
http://www.jwpepper.com/Chariots-of-Fire-Handbells/1476118.item#viewer-…
Marimba information has come from a professional percussionist although I extracted the bass marimba ranges from the article in Wikipedia which may not be completely reliable.
http://musescore.org/en/node/17811
As you can see in that post I was arguing for the use of an 8va clef for the xylophone, but the professional was maintaining it would confuse players - the debate contiues?
In reply to As I said before in the other by ChurchOrganist
I think you are correct about G and F clefs in handbell notation, just like the current instruments.xml. What made me come up with the suggestion was the Wikipedia article Handbell, but as often, Wikipedia seems to be wrong. The following site confirms that: http://www.schulmerichbells.com/products_hb_overview.php.
The bass marimba is often by Bergerault: http://www.bergerault.com/products/professional-percussions/marimba/sym…
I am a percussionist myself and I really can't understand what is confusing about the G 8va clef; as a performer you ought to know that the xylophone is notated an octave lower than sounding, therefore it is only logical to read your music from a staff with a G 8va clef. I even call that clef "the xylophone clef". I come from a tradition of using octave transposing clefs for every instrument in C that does not sound in the same octave it is written, so I have had this debate earlier with old school recorder players, guitarists, percussionists and others.
In reply to Percussion by Magnus Johansson
I am a percussionist myself
Does that mean you can help with the seemingly infinite varieties of ethnic percussion in the MusicXML 3 sound list??
In reply to I am a percussionist by ChurchOrganist
I am no expert on ethnic percussion, but I can use a search engine. I would however rather help with the revision of the instrument definitions of the current instruments.xml as they enter the new database.
In reply to Changes by Magnus Johansson
My 2 cents on this one. I would stick with tradition. It's not our job to rewrite history. If the majority of published scores are with treble clef we should use a treble clef by default, even if as a percussionist you find it obscure. We should use the most spread default not the one we prefer.
In reply to My 2 cents on this one. I by [DELETED] 5
"We should use the most spread default not the one we prefer."
When choosing between two alternatives I think we should choose the clear and consistent, not the obscure and inconsistent.
In reply to Traditions by Magnus Johansson
As you may know I'm not native english so I might not get the meaning of obscure. If the notation is obscure and inconsistent but it's the way most of published sheet music is made, meaning it's the tradition, then we should use the obscure and inconsistent as defaut.
If as a professional percussionist, laconcombremasque says that he has seen more often treble clef then we should follow this, even if it's inconsistent and obscure, tradition and expectation win. Arguing will not help except if we have references...
In reply to As you may know I'm not by [DELETED] 5
What references did laconcombremasque give?
The drumset in MuseScore doesn't match MIDI.org's .
This may also be relevant, in which all drum names would be entered, but prompted with the use of a tick box.
I was wondering if we should change the default voice and stem direction of some drums. I think it maybe a debated subject (?), but generally, I use Voice 1 for cymbals and Voice 2 for snares and bass drums.
I might be wrong, but should the clef of electric guitar and guitar be changed to 'treble' (replacing the current 'treble 8vb')?
In reply to The drumset in MuseScore by chen lung
"I was wondering if we should change the default voice and stem direction of some drums. I think it maybe a debated subject (?), but generally, I use Voice 1 for cymbals and Voice 2 for snares and bass drums."
What does it look like now?
"I might be wrong, but should the clef of electric guitar and guitar be changed to 'treble' (replacing the current 'treble 8vb')?
No, it shouldn't.
In reply to Drumset and guitar by Magnus Johansson
At the moment, the snares are Voice 1, whilst some symbols are Voice 2.
In reply to At the moment, the snares are by chen lung
Conventional drum notation use suggests tails up for notes played with the hands and tails down for those played with the feet.
So given the default MuseScore Voice setup that equates to Pedal HiHat and Kick Drum in Voice 2 everything else in voices 1 and 3.
In reply to Conventional drum notation by ChurchOrganist
Tom-tom 4, written in the second space, actually has the stem down; tom-tom 5, also written in the second space, has the stem up. This should be changed so that tom-tom 4 has stem up and tom-tom 5 is written on the second line.
I think it comes under this subject, but one thing that occurred to me was reverb and chorus.
For the majority of the time, I have both turned to 0 in the Mixer, as I think it sounds horrible on instruments that don't actually sound like it. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of people consider, or know about it, hence why it can be heard in people's scores (e.g. musescore.com) and I find it off-putting. I only utilise it if it's an intended effect, or if it does sound like the instrument being scored/transcribed for.
I think others have expressed the same: #4431: Internal synthesiser features too much reverb
Could we take this into consideration for new defaults?
In reply to I think it comes under this by chen lung
Currently there is no Reverb parameter expressed in Instruments.xml
Any reverb levels are set from within the soundfont.
IMO this is as it should be, as playing back samples with no reverb at all results in a sound so dry it becomes unacceptable to the ear.
Reverb is the effect which improves samples the most - in the real world all sounds are heard with reverb, which differs depending on the echoic properties of the surroundings, so consequently it needs to be added in sound synthesis also.
How much, and which parameters are adjusted depends on the effects you are trying to produce.
The reverb model in MuseScore is particularly crude, which is why it is so difficult to get it to sound good.
It is slightly better in 2.0 than it is in 1.2, but there is still a way to go to providing the degree of control one has in the Lexicon Reverb plugin form Sonar 3 for example, and that technology is getting on for ten years old now.
CUrrently we have two shamisens defined.
The hosozao....
and the hutozao - which I take to be a misspelling of futozao.
After doing some research, it appears that tunings and so ranges alter depending on which genre (of which there are many) is being performed.
I therefore think that it would be better to merge the two definitions into a cover-all shamisen and provide for the different types in the tablature-type selection dialogue.
Comments?
In reply to Shamisens by ChurchOrganist
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamisen I see 3 types of Shamisens: Hosozao, Chuzao and Futozao and besides being used for different genres they are contructed diffently (with a thin, middle and fat neck respectively)
In reply to On by Jojo-Schmitz
Yes, that was my source of information.
Being as the application of shamisen use is a pretty specialist musical activity, I reckon we can just include a generic shamisen in the main insturment list and cater for the rest in the Tablature presets.
What do you think?
In reply to Yes, that was my source of by ChurchOrganist
I would suggest keeping the two versions of shamisen, correct the name of the futozao and write them Shamisen (hosozao) and Shamisen (futozao) respectively.
In reply to Shamisen by Magnus Johansson
IMHO we should have either one or all three, not just two. I tend towards only one but don't care too much
In reply to IMHO we should have either by Jojo-Schmitz
That is reasonable. If we decide to have all three main types we need definition parameters for the chuzao.
In reply to IMHO we should have either by Jojo-Schmitz
If we include every possible variation of every instrument in the Create Score dialogue, it is going to be far too unwieldy.
The whole thing needs simplifying so that composers have access to the generic instruments without wading through hundreds of variations.
Those specialists who wish to use the actual types of these instruments should have access either by editing what is already there, or from staff or tablature style lists.
eg - we have a shed load of different guitars, yet most people will want to choose between acoustic, and electric. So those should be what go into the main instrument list and the specialist stuff available elsewhere for those who need it.
In reply to If we include every possible by ChurchOrganist
The instrument dialog window should have categories like e.g. Sibelius has: Common instruments, Pop and rock instruments, Medieval instruments, and so on; it should also have the option All instruments, perhaps with a warning to the user: "This option provides a very comprehensive list. If you have never heard of an instrument called shamisen or tarogato this option is probably not for you.".
In reply to The instrument dialog window by Magnus Johansson
It certainly needs looking at.
I think that maybe a three tier accordion list system might be useful structured....
Instrument Group
Instrument name <- would include generic instruments for use directly in the score
Instrument Subtype < would include all the specialist typed and opened on a separate accordion list
So it would simply need another layer adding to the current two section accordion list
It wouldn't be too difficult to modify Instruments.xml to deal with this
The addition of a search box so you could pinpoint an instrument you particularly want would be useful, and I think has already been asked for.
In reply to It certainly needs looking by ChurchOrganist
weren't there also talks about classes of instruments, like 'ethnic'?
Oh yes: in the very first article of this thread ;-)
Shamisen would fall into that category.
In reply to weren't there also talks by Jojo-Schmitz
Yes, and I am nearly at the end of Phase 1 - ie getting the existing instrument.xml file instruments with MusicXML description tags.
There is still a plethora of ethnic instruments to add, but I think we should discuss the restructuring of the instrument list in the Create Score dialogue for 2.0 before we go much further.
I shall be starting a new thread on this shortly.