About LAYERS
The Scrapbook quotes a layering feature; the example given in the scrapbook itself works correctly; however, I could not find any other score element 'layerable' beyond fingerings.
A) Is there a plan to extend this feature to other elements as well?
In particular, for my specific needs, it would be useful to have 'layerable' clefs (as I use to publish the same scores in different clef sets) and bar lines (ok, this is weird, I know...), possibly accidentals too.
_ _ _ _ _ _
B) A clarification: only one layer at a time can be active? Or, if one has for instance 4 layers, layer 1 and 3 can be activated at the same time?
Or, in alternative, can an element belong to more than one layer?
_ _ _ _ _ _
C) What about plug-ins and layers?
C1) A layered element is 'seen' by plug-ins unconditionally? Or only if the layer the element is in is activated?
C2) Can plug-ins set the layer of an element?
C3) Can plug-ins set the active layer(s)?
If no, would these possibilities seem useful?
Thanks,
M.
Comments
Personally, I'm not a big fan of this feature as it is for several reasons.
First, the use cases are very few and very special.
Second, the name is not good. "Layer" has a history in music notation since Finale uses it for what we call "Voices" in MuseScore. "Layer" also has an history in graphic software (photoshop, gimp) and so users will expect layers to be transparent things on top of the scores, and you should be able to stack them. This is not the case. As you mention in B/ there is only one active layer currently, the selector is a combo box.
Third, the mix of tags + layers is "over powerful". As far as I understand, you can define tags, and associate a tag to a fingering (or indeed in the future more elements). Then, several tags can be added in a layer. So a layer is a group of tags. Then you can choose *one* layer and it will display all the elements tagged with tags that are part of a layer.
I would simplify it to tags only, a way to associate several tags to an element, and a way to choose which tags you want to display. If we really need to save "group of tags', then I would name them "group of tags" and not layer.
While writing all this, I tried the feature again, and it looks like a right click on a fingering display a Layer menu, I think it should be a Tag menu instead. "Default" is not needed, and the list of tags should allow multi selection.
To answer your plugin question, of course, tags and layers could be exposed. As far as I can tell it's not the case right now.
Last point, tags could be also useful to remember selections. The "Select more" menu could be extended to select element by tags.
To conclude, this feature is nice and powerful, but it feels less important than many others currently in the work. If the basis are in, it would be a good candidate to delay after 2.0 and hide the different menus behind the -e command line option.
Comments welcome!
In reply to Personally, I'm not a big fan by [DELETED] 5
As I have said before, I would find this feature very useful for entering registrations as these vary from organ to organ.
So if the "layer" or whatever we are going to call it could support staff text as well as fingering that would enable the few of us wishing to use such a feature to enter just about anything we needed.
The other use I can see for this is for conductor's notes, which again would vary depending which musicians the conductor was working with.
In reply to Personally, I'm not a big fan by [DELETED] 5
I think that in order to be truly useful, it would have to be extended quite a bit, and I agree that getting this into a really usable state it could easily be more trouble than it was worth for 2.0.
But it *would* actually be very cool to have the extended version I have in mind. When I think about the situations that make me mostly likely to want to alternate versions of a score, the following come to mind:
1) Separate "concert pitch" and "transposed" layers of a score with potentially different enharmonic spellings of certain notes. This comes up on virtually every score I create for transposing instruments. I usually just give up on the concert score around the time I start thinking making my enharmonic adjustments, as it is too much trouble to maintain two copies of the score.
2) Separate "concert pitch (treble clef):" "concert pitch (bass clef)", "Bb", and "Eb", and layers of a lead sheet, with different transpositions and potentially different enharmonic spellings of certain notes. Here, I *do* normally keep separate versions of all of these, and if I later make changes, I make them to all versions.
3) Separate layers of a score where a given part is played by one instrument versus another (and would have different transpositions and possibly enharmonic adjustments).
4) An annotation layer would definitely be cool. Basically, like Sibelius sticky notes. This much at least seems like it could fit in with the current concept.
The term "layer" does bother me because of the different meaning in Finale, but actually, I think it isn't that dissimilar to Photoshop's use of the term. Not exactly the same, of course, but analogous in a way. But I'm sure another term would work as well or better.
In reply to Personally, I'm not a big fan by [DELETED] 5
Thank you lasconic.
To answer your request, in contemporary editions of early music (early meaning before mid-XVII c.), a number of clef sets are commonly used (names are not standard): the 'original clefs' set = whatever clefs the original used, often including clefs no longer used today, the 'viol clef' set = { treble, alto, bass clef }, the 'recorder' clefs' or 'modern clefs' set = { treble, treble 8abassa, bass clef }.
With computer aided music publishing, creating versions with different clef sets for the same edition only requires a small additional effort compared to the time required for the initial note entry and has some appeal; automating it even more would be a bonus and so I explored the possibility to achieve different clef sets 'simply' by turning on / off some layers.
Combining with the possibility to turn on / off other editorial indications (ficta, viol fingering (indeed!), bowing) asked for several layers to be turned on / off independently.
I agree this to be quite specialized a use case indeed and I would understand it to have a very low priority.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Tags: caught by the term 'layer', I overlooked the tag concept; in fact, if layers are seen as 'groups of tags' as you suggest, they are an answer to the multi-layer-independently-on/off matter (of course, assuming enough score elements are 'taggable'). So, the concept of 'tag group' has some relevance, once tags are in the picture.
I totally agree with all your other points: menu items, plug-ins and, with a pinch of sadness, delaying after 2.0.
Thanks,
M.
In reply to Very useful summary! by Miwarre
Just to make it clear. The current concepts just enable the user to show/hide elements. So if changing clef means changing note height on the staff too that will not work and we need something else. If I understand correctly it's not the case in your use case Miwarre right ? The clef in the sets only change the symbols but notes stay the same on the staff.
But regarding Marc use cases, 1) 2) and 3) we are talking about something totally different here and it will not solve by this mechanism. What you are asking for it's more like a different view on the same staff, it's closer from the concept of linked parts we have right now, and you could write the music once, and have linked parts displaying it for Eb, Bb, Concert pitch etc... If the part "linking" is customizable enough, enharmonic could be solved as well. In any case, it's not related with the "tag" concept (IMO)
In reply to Just to make it clear. The by [DELETED] 5
Maybe we're thinking the wrong way round on this.
If it were possible to assign a range of elements to a Tag, that would enable the user to show or hide them simply from the Tag menu.
That way ossias, different ornament interpretations, fingering systems, registrations, conductor notes etc could be revealed or hidden merely by setting that Tag to visible or invisible.
Presumably that would enable the system to work with exisitng MuseScore sturctures, but allow any group of score items to be hidden or revealed at will.
That would be brilliant from a didactic point of view - being able to reveal answers at the touch of a button like that is extremely useful.
What do you think guys?
Maybe a little much to do for 2.0, but worth thinking about for the next version?
In reply to Just to make it clear. The by [DELETED] 5
@lasconic: what I had in mind was a real change of clef, say from alto to treble 8abassa, where notes remain the same as pitches but move one step up on the staff (I didn't get layers (or tags) as "display/hide" toggles but rather as "activate/deactivate" toggles).
Well, current implementation is different, but not SO different, it is mostly a matter of at what level tags are taken into account; for instance, if the
Staff::clef(int tick)orStaff::clef(Segment* segment)methods read tag statuses, clefs could be activated or deactivated by tag toggles. Anyway, it is not for now, I agree.(note: I tried to understand how the tagging code works, but I could not make head or tail of it...)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
@ChurchOrganist: I see two points in your post:
A) extending the types of 'taggable' elements: we all agree that this would be beneficial (even if we do not necessarily agree on what to include)
B) replacing the UI access to layers to a direct access to tags
Even if they might require a non-trivial amount of work, neither seem revolutionary with respect to current implementation.
M.
In reply to Just to make it clear. The by [DELETED] 5
Yes, I realize my examples are completely outside the scope of the current design. I was thinking "outside the box" of thingsthat would interest me if someone said they were designing a facility that let you have different versions of a score available. I guess my point is, if the current design can handle the very basics of fingerings and other simple text markings, fine. But if we are talking about ultimately expanding it, I think it would make sense to consider a design that could encompass these use cases. If it makes more sense to build this into linked parts somehow, that could be fine too. Yes, that totally makes sense. My lead sheet example would be a score of one staff, four different lonked parts each referencing that linked part, but different transpositions and enharmonics in each.
In reply to Yes, I realize my examples by Marc Sabatella
To sum it up, I would consider tags as a way to "remember a selection" and "layers" (but I still don't like the name) as a way to set the elements in the selection visible or not on screen.
To address some use cases from Marc (transpose, concert pitch "layers) and some of Miwarre ones (set of clefs), I think they would be better adressed by the part construct. A part is not necessarily just one instrument, a part can be all instruments of the score too. If we had a way to "unlink" some elements (like clef, or concert pitch switch, or element from a tag) between a part and the main score, then we would solve these use case.
In reply to To sum it up, I would by [DELETED] 5
Agreed on all counts.
In reply to To sum it up, I would by [DELETED] 5
On a related note, currently we can only add elements (in fact just fingerings) to a layer or a tag when the elements has been put in the score (via right click -> Layer). It would be good to have a way to say "from now on, I'm all the elements I will add are in layer X, or tagged with Y", and then to switch this on. It would make adding different fingerings, bowing indication or annotation in layers easier.