MuseScore 2.0.1 is released

• 2 years ago

A month after the release of MuseScore 2.0, we are pleased to announce the availability of MuseScore 2.0.1 which comes with 100+ bug fixes.

When we released 2.0, it had been more than two years since the release of 1.3. This was deliberate, as we knew 2.0 was a major undertaking and we wanted to get it right, but we also knew we wanted to have more frequent releases going forward. Today we are taking that first step with MuseScore 2.0.1. This release fixes more than 100 bugs. We focused on addressing all the crashes and score corruption issues that we could, and also a number of problems where the results of certain commands could be lost upon save and reload. Quite a few other less serious but still annoying bugs were fixed as well.

While the MuseScore 2.0.1 release was all about increasing stability, we are also working on new features and other improvements and hope to have another release to present before the end of the year

The response to MuseScore 2.0 has been overwhelmingly positive so far, and we hope this 2.0.1 update demonstrates our commitment to justifying that excitement and making sure MuseScore remains the choice of so many musicians around the world.

musescore-2.0.1.png


Comments

I think Musescore is one of the most, if not the best, notation software out there.
Thanks guys, your work rocks! Hope the new release will come very soon this year.

Tommaso

Does the sight reading plugin still works in the new versions?
Would like to see some youtube video on this :) somebody?

I downloaded the update, but when I tried it, I didn't have any sound when I tried to play back a song. It still plays the metronome sound, but not the instruments. Does anyone know why?

This is one of the things that makes Musescore better than proprietary software. We don't have to pay out the nose for upgrades when the developers finally get around to updating and adding new stuff. Instead, we get frequent updates and fixes based on feedback from the community. Thanks for everything you guys do! Musescore has definitely helped me "find my wings" as a musician, and I'm looking forward to using it for a long time, even hopefully in a future career.

In reply to by Daniel D'Onofrio

I don't know a great deal about packaging for Linux, but the MuseScore team might be able to save the package maintainers a bit of work. I think there are some things (e.g. mimetype handling) that are common to many Linux distros and could potentially be done by MuseScore rather than by the package maintainers. This might reduce the turnaround time at each release.

In the meantime, you can try compiling from source. The compilation guide takes you through it step-by-step.

When you reach "Get the source code":

git clone git://github.com/musescore/MuseScore.git
cd MuseScore

Add these lines immediately after `cd MuseScore` to get the 2.0.1 release:

git checkout tags/v2.0.1
git reset --hard tags/v2.0.1

Have you fixed the annoying problems like everytime dialog box "Do you want to save this file" when we open and close any score, even without any change and without even playing it? It is annoying.

Second, the window of Play Panel should be detached and so big; it should be small and attached towards right side, just by the side of Snapshot camera icon. The levers of volume and speed should be horizontal.

Plz add the option of scanning any PDF files and converting them into music score. That would be awesome addition to musescore!!! The import conversion option for pdf doesn't work at all. Musescore should have its own scanning plugins.

In reply to by Jacob_violin

THe dialog you refer to only happens for imported scores - scores that came from other programs, or older versions of MuseScore. It is there to tell you tht you have not saved the file in the current MuseScore format, so you should simply answer yes rather than constantly having to re-import the score every time. Then you won't see the dialog any more.

As for playback, do realize that is not the primary purpose of MsueScore - it is a *notation* program. So the interface is optimzied for that purpose. The mobile apps, on the other hand, are more optimized for playback, so check those out.

Anyhow, if you see problems, you should report them to the issue tracker, including sample scores and precise step by step instructions to reproduce the problem. We can't fix problems that aren't reported.

in particular? What specific problem are you having with the import of PDF? It's very experimental technology and a much harder to solve than most people realize, which is why it doens't work perfectly, but it is not true that it does not work at all. It works about as well as voice recogniition did when that technology wasd in *its* infancy. But since that technology is provided by Audiveris, you should report any specific problems you encounter to them.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Correction in prev comment (The Play Panel should NOT be so big and detached)--- It takes excessive cover in front of the score and we have to keep moving it out of sight).

Regarding Audiveris. I have tried uploading many pdf files but it only works when the pdf file is produced from a notation software. Otherwise it doesn't work on any scanned pdf file; We rarely find a pdf that is produced from software; moreover we already have easy access to midi files of all such software produced pdf files. I am thinking if you could add some feature like that of in other (paid) softwares which aren't so huge in size and working as Audiveris then it will be awesome.

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

@Zack, No, the volume, tempo, and scroll bar none of them are in shortcuts. They all could have been easily fitted in the toolbar section. there is no need for a new hanging window for them; the tempo and volume bars could fit horizontally.

and yes, all my attempts are unsuccessfull. Except one or two when the pdf file was produced from software (example Vitali Chaconne). Audiveris would destroy an ordinary computer. I had installed it to scan pdf files, but it takes huge load of processing. I guess it is better to try it online through this experimental tie up on musescore. Musescore should do something for scanning pdf files.

I have another suggestion which is very important. There should be a plugin or option for creating Etudes like we find in violin books. There could be Etude practice files given with Musescores by default; or there should be an option for creating random Etudes easily ; or there should be a collection of hundreds or thousands of Etudes built in within Musescore. Such an feature seems quite essential for a software which is meant for music students. It will radically reduce our need to scan pdf etude files.

In reply to by Jacob_violin

Well, yes, attempting to scan handwritten music is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Like I said, this is highly experimental technology. I think perhaps you are greatly underestimating the complixty of the problem. Realistically, what you describe is not going to be happenng soon - it's just beyond current technology.

As for automatically creating etudes, that sounds useful, but again, not the job of notatiob software. Let people who specialize in artificial intellifgence and so forth solve that problem with their own program, and then MuseScore can handle the notation.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc. You already have a plugin named "random" which automatically creates a very small random (useless) score!! The same technology could easily produce long Patterned score each time (imitating the patterns of Etudes found in violin books). Perhaps it would be easy and better if Musescore simply provides a number of Etude scores inbuilt for practice. It is most essential for program like Musescore.

In reply to by Jacob_violin

I'm just trying to set reasonable expectations. MuseScore is *music notation* program - it tries to excell at helping people create notated scores. So *that* is what "most essential for a program like MuseScore". Everything else is secondary. Playback features, automatic generations of exercises based on whatever parameters - these are fine things, but they just aren't the main job of a notation program. Playback is a ncie thing to have in conjunction with notation - so you can here the score you are creating to check your work - but that's what that feature is intended for, not as a practice / playalong aid. That's the job of different software, as is automatically generating exercises. Not saying some enterprising volunteer couldn't add something like that as an optional plugin - if you're a programmer, have a ball! - but that just isn't what MuseScore is intended for.

So I wouldn't be holding your breath thinking tht the next release of MuseScore will be adding features that take it in a different direction. What you should instead count on primarily is improvement in the ability to create notated scores.

I just today transferred from Musescore 1.3, and I have to say, contrary to everyone else's opinions here, I don't really like it. Don't get wrong here, I love Musescore 2.0.1, and the interface is much more user-friendly and modernized. The instruments also seem more clean, but this is wherein my biggest problem lies with Musescore 2.0.1. The instruments are very much different from 1.3, and while this doesn't seem that much of a problem, the instruments hardly sound like their real life counterparts. Clarinets sound like distortion guitars, saxophones lost their crisp sound and now their tone is somewhere between nasal trumpet and muddy oboe. Every brass instrument sounds way too blasty; it's pretty disorienting considering that I make concert band pieces for my friends. I still appreciate all the work that was poured into this newest version, but the voices just kill me. Is there any way to import the voices from 1.3 into 2.0.1?

In reply to by ATMSPHR

And, of course you are not tied to one soundfont any more, so you can mix and match sounds from different soundfonts in your scores.

So if you prefer the trombone from General User GS but the Clarinet from TimGM6mb you load both soundfonts and then assign the sounds you want in the mixer.

In reply to by ChurchOrganist

This is intended for all the people who commented, not just to ChurchOrganist. Thank you guys so much for recommending these sound fonts and how to in a sense, mix and match them. I got the GeneralUser and the original font, and personally, I like these voices much better than the preset font that comes with the download(and still on the lookout for anything else I like on other sites). Thanks for being genteel with the comments and recommendations. I hope you all have a nice day.

In reply to by ATMSPHR

I have spent many hours searching the net for GM soundfonts to try out. To me, the best overall is Timbres of Heaven, so that's worth checking out if you haven't yet. I find it somewhat better than FluidR3 for the most part (the default with MuseScore 2.0 / 2.0.1), but the two of them are, to me, pretty close in overall quality / realism. The next tier down after that for me is GeneralUserGS & Arachno, both of which have some very good qualities. GeneralUserGS in particular is perhaps the most well-balanced, well-matched soundfont around. TimGM6mb (the default with MuseScore 1.3) is several notches below any of these to me, but it's not bad for as small as it manages to be.

Pretty much all other GM-compatible soundfonts I have tried - and I have tried dozens over the years - fall somewhere below GeneralUserGS and any of the others I mentioned, although most manage to at least equal TimGM6mb. I never found any others I liked enough to not delete shortly after experimenting with them. Well, the one that comes with Finale Notepad is, to me, comparable to GeneralUser GS & Arachno, so if you happen to have access to that program (thanks to Zach for pointing out that this is in fact compatible with MuseScore), you can give it a shot.

There are plenty of non-GM soundfonts out there that provide just a handful of specific instruments, but they may or may not use GM mappings, and they generally won't mix and match well in terms of balance, so even though some of them might individually sound good, I haven't found any I found worth the trouble. Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra in particular has a really good reputation - fueled mostly by an impressive demo that I was assume was very highly tweaked in DAW software - and could be worth your time. But for me, just didn't sound enough better than the others in actual practice when simply listening to playback within MuseScore to be worth the considerable effort it takes to customize a score to use it, especially if you need instruments it does not provide.

This looks very nice. But I am not using just windows, I want this on my Ubuntu computer too... Where (and how) can I get new Musescore 2 for Ubuntu? I am trying to install it (upgrade it) from software center, but it is still old Musescore... I tried from musescore website too, but I didn't manage to install new one...

In reply to by uzupec

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. Apps in the Ubuntu Software Centre are never updated except to fix critical security flaws. This is to prevent incompatibilities from being introduced in an update (another case of "it's not a bug, it's a feature!").

MuseScore 2 will (hopefully) be available in the Ubuntu 15.10 Software Centre, but it will never be in the Software Centre for Ubuntu 15.04 or earlier. A separate PPA is used to host the latest stable release of MuseScore to make it available before the next release of Ubuntu. Once you add this PPA you will be able to install the latest version from Terminal (or even from the Software Centre once the PPA is added to your list of sources).

To add the PPA:

$ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:mscore-ubuntu/mscore-stable
$ sudo apt-get update
$ sudo apt-get upgrade

If you already had an older version of MuseScore (e.g. 1.3) it will now be updated to the latest version available from the PPA (currently 2.0.0). If you didn't already have it you can now get it from the Software Centre, or by using:

$ sudo apt-get install musescore