Can't save Musescore 2 files in 3.4.2
Can open Musescore 2 (.mscz) files in 3.4.2, but cannot save them. The program thinks I'm asking for a 'save as' and asks whether I want to overwrite the file that's already there. That's fine. But when I click 'yes' it gives me the following error message:
Renaming temp. file to failed:
Bad file descriptor
Can anyone help?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Caravan_Sketches.mscz | 8.52 KB |
Comments
When using MuseScore 3, if you are opening and editing a file originally created in MuseScore 2 you should afterwards save it in the MuseScore 3 folder. Use menu item: Edit -> Preferences and (on the 'General tab) note the location of the 'Scores' folder.
Then, when saving your freshly edited score navigate to, and save in, that MuseScore 3 location .
Also, a brand new score created in MuseScore 3 should be saved there too.
Once a score is saved as a MuseScore 3 file, it cannot be opened in MuseScore 2.
This way, all your old MuseScore 2 scores will safely remain in the old MuseScore 2 folder.
(MuseScore 2 and MuseScore 3 can peacefully coexist on the same machine.)
Thanks JM! I also found that I can save to another name in the same folder. I guess that means that the file format has changed? I want to keep them in the location they are in now, so maybe I'll try changing the names of the ver. 2 files so that they don't interfere with my new ver. 3 files.
In reply to Thanks JM! I also found that… by babalaughing
The basic format is the same, but enough details have changed that MuseScore 2 cannot understand MuseScore 3 files.
In reply to Thanks JM! I also found that… by babalaughing
You wrote:
I also found that I can save to another name in the same folder.
Saving an existing file under a different name in the same folder is 'found' not only in MuseScore. It's fundamental to data organization in general: i.e., two files with identical names cannot be stored in the same place. (That's why MuseScore 3 creates it's own default score folder when installed.)
You also wrote:
I want to keep them - [i.e., ver. 2 and ver. 3] - in the location they are in now, so maybe I'll try changing the names...
Keeping them in the same folder will require a solid, logical plan for re-naming - especially if dealing with many files.
A good plan, for example, would be to add a "-3" to the name when saving the MuseScore 3 edited files:
So, "Happy Birthday" saved as "Happy Birthday -3"
'Over the Rainbow" saved as "Over the Rainbow -3"
etc.
This way, all versions will appear listed in the same folder in an orderly fashion; with MuseScore 3 files identified by the "-3".
In contrast...
Here's a bad plan for naming 2 versions in the same folder:
"Happy Birthday" saved as "Happy Birthday to You"
"Over the Rainbow" saved as "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"
etc.
(That last one, especially, would be horrible for an alphabetized listing of the two versions in the same location.)
Again, that's why MuseScore 3 creates its own (default) score folder. That way, you can maintain identically named version 2 and version 3 scores, each version residing in its own folder.
In reply to I also found that I can save… by Jm6stringer
@jm6: I don't really get your recommendation, at least not in all cases.
For people having several V2 scores properly organised in folders by genre / compositor / whatever, duplicating that structure in V2/V3 seems a lot worse than renaming all V2 files as [current name]_V2 (or naming V3 files [name]_V3 (or both)).
Otherwise looking for a file always require to search in two different places, and checking if a V2 file is already converted or not is also a lot less straightforward than just checking if the file with the same name + [_V3] exists or not in the same folder.
Now, if you decide to take the time to convert ALL your V2 files at once, then of course keeping separated V2 / V3 structure makes sense.
In reply to @jm6: I don't really get… by frfancha
There are savvy people who create complex file and folder structures out of necessity - to make sense of their growing score database. Over time, and as a result of adding new classifications like genre / composer / whatever, they develop good organizational skills. When a new version of MuseScore comes along, they already know what they are doing and need no advice.
On the other hand, there are people who get confounded by the concepts 'Save' and 'Save as'. Others lack navigation skills and are unable to 'drill down' through a folder structure to reach a particular location. Most likely, for reasons like this, they do not create complex file and folder structures on their own.
My point was the simple case:
You have a box of MuseScore 2 files. MuseScore 3 gets released. You make a box for MuseScore 3 files. Any new scores you create are saved in the MuseScore 3 box. Any MuseScore 2 files you open/edit in MuseScore 3 are also saved in the MuseScore 3 box.
P.S. MuseScore3 even supplies the (default) box.
i have found the problem of finding files, including V2 and V3 in their respective directories, and online scores, hopeless with the tools provided. I have built my own tools that extract and cache "meta"/score-properties information out of all my scores, in all three places, and are prepared to search work titles, movement titles, file names compounded in various ways, etc., in the manner of an intelligent search engine. If you cannot remember the exact file name by which you wrote out the Sarabande from the 6th partita in E minor BWV 830, oh yes, by Bach (or "Rainbow", "Somewhere", "SOTR".. etc), which would be everybody, such tools are necessary. It'd be cool if MS could integrate with system-wide searching tools (e.g., Mac Spotlight) for such searches, but short of that, a better form of score-searching and finding would be highly desirable (e.g., centered on an index database maintained by the application).
In reply to i have found the problem of… by [DELETED] 1831606
@Jm6stringer... You wrote:
There are savvy people who create complex file and folder structures out of necessity - to make sense of their growing score database.
Also, there are uber savants who deem conventional search methods hopeless and cache file meta data using home grown tools.
(Plus, they know what "meta" means... :-)
In reply to @Jm6stringer... You wrote:… by Jm6stringer
This made my day :) A long career in programming has to buy something ...
In reply to @Jm6stringer... You wrote:… by Jm6stringer
I'm gonna reply in a more focused manner here.
I really think there is a need for a useful way to search one's own scores; No matter how deficient it is (and it is plenty), the web site's search facility allows you to search by titles, composers, etc. At least it tries, and indexes that information in some form, allowing you to search into it. You can't do that with your own scores on your own machine. That is a deficiency; file-names are no substitute for the adequate description of a score.
That's why I "did it".
In reply to I'm gonna reply in a more… by [DELETED] 1831606
FWIW, at one point I was a pretty serious photographer, and the question of how to organize hundreds of thousands of photos is a huge topic in that world. The techniques of "digital asset management" that arose to solve this problem are pretty applicable to lots of other fields, and indeed, the sort of organizational schemes used by programs like iTunes are also dealing with those same issues. A problem is that in order for these schemes to work well, you need to give up some of the control you might have otherwise had over how/where your files are actually stored - what folders they go in. It's a particular religion you kind of need to buy into in order for the schemes to work. With iTunes, I never could; with my photography, I definitely became an evangelist.
Anyhow, that's all to say that I do agree there is enormous value in good organizational and search schemes, but the realities of implementing it and then using it effectively can be problematic.
In reply to FWIW, at one point I was a… by Marc Sabatella
Full-disk indexers like Mac Spotlight don't care where you store your files; unless you lock it out, it finds them. Put them wherever you want, make all the subtrees you want, as long as the indexer can find them. Right now, unless you do something like I did, "where did I put it?" and "what the heck did I call it, again?" dance a nasty pas-de-deux to the end of time.
In reply to Full-disk indexers like Mac… by [DELETED] 1831606
True, it's possible at a non-trivial performance penalty to do this. Probably easier if you're the OS developer and build in your own hooks for this, but for anyone else to do it requires a whole lot of overhead. not something I can see being built into MuseScore but I could imagine integrating with a good third party open source solution,
Love how this has morphed into a discussion of file organizing schemes, but at the same time want to highlight the point I was only implying with my query-- to wit, I wasn't looking for an organizational scheme; the issue was forced on me because 3.4.2 won't let me overwrite a file originally saved in version 2.x. I'm guessing there might be technical hurdles that are not worth jumping. I can live with it. But personally, I want to keep the filename unchanged, so I rename the v.2 file before opening and saving in 3.4.2. But as others have noted, there are a number of ways to do it.
In reply to Love how this has morphed… by babalaughing
Errors like what you see would typically be due to something about your particular system configuration - your OS, the permissions on your home folder, what type of filesystem your drive uses, etc. Maybe someone else has more insight into specifics, but anyhow, I wanted to give some sort of relevant reply, even if it's not anything particularly useful.