Request for comment: Doing away with Staff Properties "Part name" and using "Long instrument name" instead
When changing the name of an instrument in Staff Properties (for example, to add a number), it seems nobody fails to take care of both the Long and Short instrument names.
And it seems nobody *succeeds* in taking care of the "Part name" field, even when they've been explicitly instructed twice to change the "Part name" along with the "Long instrument name" and "Short instrument name." There are a couple examples in this thread: https://musescore.org/en/node/53891
The "Part name" field is used for only two things, as far as I know: naming linked parts when they are created (File > Parts), and identifying instruments in the Mixer (View > Mixer).
I cannot think of any circumstance in which it makes sense for these to be different from the "Long instrument name" at the beginning of the staff.
Given the apparent counterintuitiveness of the current system, what do people think of eliminating the "Part name" for MuseScore 3 and just using the "Long instrument name" for the same purposes?
Comments
I think the issue goes beyond the names; there is also confusion over what the exact semantics of staff, instrument, and part really are. That is, what properties apply to which abstractions. I tried to drum up some interest in clarifying this a while back - see https://musescore.org/en/node/24079 - with little success. But that was a while back and probably things have changed since then.
In reply to I think the issue goes beyond by Marc Sabatella
I wasn't even thinking about names—just "Here are these two obvious things, and oh, wait, there's a third thing over here that I have to manually set to match one of the two obvious things."
Sounds like a good idea to me - eliminate an unnecessary step!
Users' failure to change the part name is probably mostly due to the graphic layout of the Edit Staff/Part Properties dialogue. The Long and Short Instrument names fields are huge, eye-catching rectangles; combined they take up close to 50% of the whole panel. The Part name, otoh, is a one-line editable field shoehorned in between a panel header and an almost identical field--Instrument--which isn't directly editible. I have to admit I never noticed the Part name field until you called my attention to it with this thread; sure, I saw it, but it just never registered on my consciousness that it was an actual text field. If I thought about it at all, I probably assumed it was part of the internal labeling of things the program needs to keep track of what's what. I've always edited the default part name directly on the parts once they are generated.
But being able to set that text when doing the initial set-up of a score is quite a useful thing, so I would not recommend eliminating this field from the dialogue. Rather, re-design the dialogue panel so that all three of those 'name' fields are of equal size, shape, and visual importance, and place them under the Instrument field (with its 'Change Instrument' button), which should be a different shape and size.
From a practical standpoint, there will always be a need for differences between the long instrument name on a score and the part title of an actual part. Most of these differences would be due to space restrictions; the rest might be generated as a result of an editor's personal preferences. Still, I have no problem with using the Long Instrument name for each staff as the default part name. When the long name is edited, a pop-up could appear asking, 'Use this name for Part Title?' If the user clicks 'Yes', the Part name updates automatically. If he clicks no, the cursor snaps to the Part name field and selects the existing text to edit it. That way the user can't fail to notice there's input required from him.
In reply to Users' failure to change the by Recorder485
"There will always be a need for differences between the long instrument name on a score and the part title of an actual part." Can you describe an example? And at any rate, with my proposal of no "Part name" field at all, it would still be possible to change every part name exactly as before, just with a much smarter default.
In reply to "There will always be a need by Isaac Weiss
In scores, the long instrument name is for the use of the conductor in (among other things) evaluating his personnel needs to perform the piece. It may contain special information that the part title wouldn't need to include, such as the specific type of instrument:
Violoncelle ou
Basse de viole
(7 string)
whereas the part would only need to be entitled:
Cello/Basse de viole
so that the proper part could be passed out to the proper performer at the first rehearsal.
There are other reasons a part title and long instrument name might differ. In concerti grossi, players are divided into two groups: 'concertino' and 'ripieno'. In the score, these groups will be bracketed together, so it is not necessary for the long instrument names for the individual staves within each group to contain the additional word 'concertino' or 'ripieno'. It's obvious to the conductor from the bracketing and ordering of the staves. But the part titles DO need to contain these distinctions, as there will often be a Violin I 'de concertino' and another Violin I 'del ripieno'.
Since I've never used the 'Part name' field to set this up before--for the reasons I mentioned in my first comment--I can't argue that removing it would make life impossible...but I will argue that if that field were to be placed where users would see and use it, it would be used more often, and would be a labour-saving device. Sure, I can edit the part titles on the parts themselves once they're generated, but that's an additional PITN. Since a function already exists to avoid that, instead of flushing that function, why not make it more user-friendly so it will be used?
In reply to In scores, the long by Recorder485
Reasonable enough. So in that case, what do you think of this?
In reply to Reasonable enough. So in that by Isaac Weiss
One only sort of related thing that has always bugged me abut this dialog: it looks like the name of the instrument (the field right above "Part name") is editable, because it is displayed in a box like editable fields normally are. The same is true for the usable pitch range fields as well as the "Style group". Not sure what the applicable GUI standards might be here, but it's worth thinking about whether there is a better way to display the name of the instrument. Just changing the order of this and the part name - which seems to be the main change in the image above - helps a lot.
In reply to One only sort of related by Marc Sabatella
That, and also making "Part name" full width over "Long" and "Short"—while the Instrument field is shorter because of the "Change Instrument..." button. Currently, both are short for some reason.
Note that this was an image-editing mockup; I don't have the skills to actually make it happen.
In reply to That, and also making "Part by Isaac Weiss
I think I can use Qt Creator to rearrange those fields and submit a PR.
In reply to I think I can use Qt Creator by Isaac Weiss
Other small suggestions:
* Relabel "Play transposition" to just "Transposition" and switch the order of the interval and octave selectors.
* Make the "Advanced Style Properties..." and "Change Instrument..." buttons QPushButtons instead of QToolButtons, so they'll be the normal size.
Result (not a mockup this time, but an actual screenshot!):
Does this look acceptable?
In reply to Other small suggestions: * by Isaac Weiss
The one benefit of calling the field "Play Transposition" is that it makes the direction more clear. That is, you are specifying how much higher or lower the playback should be compared to written pitches, as opposed to vice versa. It's still confusing, but I fear taking the word "Play" out of the picture makes it that much more so. But maybe there are other solutions?
In reply to The one benefit of calling by Marc Sabatella
That's my understanding, at least, of what "transposition" is, without prepending "play." It's also worth nothing that these controls actually change the written pitches, not the sounding pitches, so "play" has the potential to be misleading in that respect.
"Maybe there are other solutions"—we could spell it all out: "Transpose written pitches to sound:" There's almost enough room for it without making the dialog bigger. I can't say I like it, though.
In reply to That's my understanding, at by Isaac Weiss
I suspect most people when thinking about transposition think of it the exact opposite way. That is, people don't generally say "trumpet sounds a major second lower than written", they say "music for trumpet needs to be written a major second higher than it sounds". And anyone accustomed to thinking in those terms would be inclined to select the "Up" direction rather than "Down". I'd prefer a wording that helped clarify this. You are right, though, that changing this preserves the sounding pitch, not the written pitch, which is far from obvious. So I think there is plenty of room for improvement here. I just don't think removing the word "Play" helps.
In reply to I suspect most people when by Marc Sabatella
Well, I'm not too strongly attached to removing it—I can add it back and we'll leave the larger struggle for another year. ;-)
In reply to Well, I'm not too strongly by Isaac Weiss
It actually doesn't look that bad all written out:
![Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 10.17.34 PM.png]( "Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 10.17.34 PM.png")
In reply to It actually doesn't look that by Isaac Weiss
That's better indeed. Might be possible to wordsmith a little further, but I don't have any ideas.
Why did you reverse the interval and ocrave, BTW? The new order makes more sense for instruments like guitar that transpose exactly an octave - putting the more relevant field first. But the old order was similarly better for instruments that transpose by intervals less than an octave. Six of one, half dozen of the other to me.
In reply to That's better indeed. Might by Marc Sabatella
I think basically in terms of place value—larger value first, then smaller. Similarly, it would strike me as awkward if the Gettysburg Address began "seven and fourscore" instead of "fourscore and seven."
In reply to I think basically in terms of by Isaac Weiss
I think the downside of presenting larger value then smaller in this particular context is that we mostly think about instruments as transposing according to the smaller interval - the octave disposition is almost an afterthought, as for most instruments it is 0. The reason larger value comes first in other contexts is that it is usually most relevant - like if we say it is 60 feet 6 inches from the pitcher's mound to home plate, it's because the 60 feet is the more significant piece of the puzzle. But when talking sizes that are less than a foot, we seldom say "0 feet 6 inches". And even for instruments that do transpose at intervals greater than an octave, the name of the instrument usually focuses on the smaller interval, not the octave. Like, we speak of a Bb tenor saxophone, not a "octave plus major second" tenor saxophone.
In reply to I think the downside of by Marc Sabatella
Indeed we would seldom say "0 feet 6 inches," but I think we would never say "6 inches and 0 feet!"
In reply to Indeed we would seldom say "0 by Isaac Weiss
Which illustrates my point - the "feet" part, like the "octave" part, is basically just an afterthought if we think of it at all, which is why I'm not as comfortable with seeing it listed first. Anyhow, the analogy is admittedly not perfect in that there is not really a situation where we care about both inches and feet but care about inches *more*, whereas that is basically exactly what happens for Bb tenor saxophone.
In reply to Which illustrates my point - by Marc Sabatella
Usually I defer to your opinion, but in this case I'm going to keep debating it. I don't agree that in the case of the tenor sax we care more about the whole step than the octave; they both go together. And I don't think the "6 inches, 0 feet" analogy does illustrate your point. The fact is that we must include the number of octaves, whether or not it's zero—stopping at "6 inches" is not an option. It's either going to be x octaves + y semitones or y semitones + x octaves, and the second of those just fundamentally doesn't make sense to me.
In reply to Usually I defer to your by Isaac Weiss
Well, I don't feel strongly about it, and agree the baseball analogy doesn't really help. But I am surprised you don't find the point about the tenor saxophone convincing. You really call it the "octave tenor saxophone" rather than the "Bb tenor saxophone"? Or.yoh don't think that the very name of the instrument had any bearing on how people think about its transposition?
In reply to Well, I don't feel strongly by Marc Sabatella
No, I call it Bb, but I don't think of it as transposing a whole step, I think of it a transposing an octave plus a whole step. I can't separate only part of the transposition in my mind.
In reply to No, I call it Bb, but I don't by Isaac Weiss
Could be a jazz thing. Jazz musicians are used to playing from lead sheets that are transposed by step only - no octave transposition. So tenors would be playing the melody an octave below other instruments. So at a fundamental level, the insreument really is treated as if it were the same transposition as trumpet in this context. The octave disposition only becomes relevant when *arranging*, not on your basic run of the mill jazz combo gig. Which is why I say in practice it is less significant and less foremost on the mind.
In reply to Could be a jazz thing. Jazz by Marc Sabatella
Ah, interesting. I approach it from a concert band arranging standpoint, which is why it makes no sense to me to ignore the octave.
But, again, it must appear here—and even in your context I think the user who doesn't want to consider the octave would just as soon skim over it to get to the semitones as come across it after the semitones are taken care of.
In reply to Ah, interesting. I approach by Isaac Weiss
Yes, absolutely we do need to keep the octave field. I just find it makes more sense to put second, that's all. At least now I think we understand each other is coming from a little better. Would be interesting to hear from others, but in the end, it is little importance.
In reply to It actually doesn't look that by Isaac Weiss
"Play Transposition" is fine as it is.
In reply to It actually doesn't look that by Isaac Weiss
I think the sample picture above makes more sense than the current dialog. With the current dialog I usually press the wrong up/down button.
In reply to I think the sample picture by mike320
Thank you! Do you have any opinion on what order to list the octaves and semitones in?
In reply to Thank you! Do you have any by Isaac Weiss
I prefer octave then semi-tones. It just makes more sense. I know the math is the same (and I'm very good at math), but it's easier for me comprehend to change the octave then change the key (which is what the drop down does).
I would prefer the display to be
Transpose played notes X octaves up/down + key change
This is what I do in my mind when I transpose an Eb sax, which I play.
In reply to I prefer octave then by mike320
Me, too. Unfortunately that's more complicated than I can handle.
In reply to Me, too. Unfortunately that's by Isaac Weiss
Transpose played notes X octaves up/down + key change
It means Down/Up should be reversed?
In reply to Transpose played notes X by [DELETED] 5
My read is this doesn't change - we're still talking about taking the written pitch and transposing it to yield the sounding pitch, just changing how this worded. At least that is my understanding.
In reply to My read is this doesn't by Marc Sabatella
I submitted https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/3057, which does not implement the "Transpose played notes X octaves up/down + key change" idea. The important/necessary changes are about the instrument and part name. For transposition, I went ahead with the verbose introductory wording and octaves-plus-semitones, which is in Marc's words six of one, half a dozen of the other; if that's controversial, I can back that part out again.
PR is for master; 2.1 version will be forthcoming if there are no problems.
In reply to I submitted by Isaac Weiss
YES to greying out the uneditable values.
NO to changing the wording of the transpose section.
In reply to YES to greying out the by geetar
You really think it's perfect as it is? Can you explain why?
In reply to Reasonable enough. So in that by Isaac Weiss
Swapping the order of those two fields definitely helps, but I think it would be even clearer if the fields for all three different names were the same size and shape. I don't have the software to do a professional looking mock up like yours, but here's a quick-and-sloppy table showing the arrangement I think would work best.
![Part properties revised layout.png]( "Part properties revised layout.png")
I also agree with Marc's concern about the Instrument field looking like it's direct-editable when it's not. My suggestion for that would be to change that into a drop-down menu with side expansions to take care of the sub-categories (All Instruments, Common Instruments, Jazz Instruments, etc.) and the instrument list for each.
IMO, the fields for transposition and lowest/highest note are fine as they are; the 'pencil' icon to indicate pop-up editing is clear and shouldn't confuse anyone.
BTW, what do you think of my idea of a 'helper' pop-up when the Long Instrument Name is edited?
ETA: We might also think about changing the names of the Long and Short Instrument names. We are all used to them by now, but to new users I don't think they are particularly indicative of what they are. Perhaps something like "Instrument Name: First System" and "Instrument Name: All Subsequent systems". What do you think?