Converting Musescore files to xml files.

• Jan 12, 2012 - 00:14

How can I convert Musescore files to xml files?


Comments

Actually very easy. A .mscz file is actually a zipped (compressed) .mscx file. So, the way I do it on my Mac is to rename or copy the file to a .zip filename, and then in Finder double click on it. It will be uncompressed into a folder which contains the .mscx file, which is a .xml file.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

You're confused? :-)

I think you've answered. Musicxml is read in all or most notation programs.I'm new to all this. I just want to have various files for whatever purposes, but not those unneccesary. It seems musicxml is important to have. Eventually when I upload, I prefer to do so on something other than mscz. I'd prefer to fuss over the sound quality, so I will look into this "custom audio" at which time I'm sure to have a question...or two.

It seems that Musescore used to convert to .XML as I have files from Jan '17 that were done that way but now .XML is not a choice. I'm trying to coordinate with an older version of Sibelieus and she can't open Musicxml. Any suggestions? Thanks

Joe

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

It may still be possible to make MuseScore 3 (too late for MuseScore 2) to allow for saving as .xml, as a convenience to the users? Esp. on Windows it is not all that easy to change the extension of a file (but no rocket science either). I wanted this back when we switched to .musicxml, but got overruled ;-)

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I'm certainly not in favour of allowing MuseScore to export .xml files by default, but I suppose there is no harm in having an advanced preference to enable this functionality. Enabling that option would also allow command line users to request .xml using the -o export option.

In reply to by shoogle

I don't understand why the option to export with the extension of xml was removed so quickly. At the time of the release, the musicxml extension was just (within a few days) created and compatibility with existing software ceased, and the only difference was the extension. If there is a change to the exported xml format that requires xml 3.0, then by all means, don't cause more confusion, but otherwise allow for the xml extension.

In reply to by shoogle

I'm saying the xml option should be available in version 3. There are many users out there still using software that uses the xml extension. Even though the latest versions may include the musicxml extension, a lot of people who are using MuseScore are probably doing so because they are hesitant to spend money to upgrade to the latest version of software, just so they can use the musicxml extension. One piece of evidence is that I don't remember seeing a file with the musicxml extension being uploaded for help because it was created by another program. I only remember seeing xml extensions.

In reply to by mike320

MuseScore 3 still accepts .xml files during import, and I'm saying there should be an option to export them, but that the option should be disabled by default. This seems the best compromise in terms of encouraging the standard extension while still enabling use with software that doesn't yet recognise it.

In reply to by shoogle

Nobody ever wanted .xml to be the default (after the introduction of .musicxml), just as an additional option.

It is a 1-line change to make it available to the -o option and for the knowing user to manually change the extension from musicxml to xml).
And is another 2-line change (still requiring the user to manually change the extension from musicxml to xml, but at least telling about this) or a 2-line addition (to let the user chose) for making it available in the export and export parts dialogs.
Another additional 4 lines to make it available only if some (advanced) preference is set

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

The problem is that there is no such thing as "the default" if both options are made available; there is just two options, and people will choose the one they recognise. I suppose this could be discouraged by labelling it "Uncompressed MusicXML (legacy)" or something like that, but if .xml is hidden and only displayed via an advanced preference that would ensure it is only used by people who actually need it.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

(apologies for not citing all definitions)

Since the definitions are for software features, functions, systems not a mere string/extension choice, it make them tricky to apply in this case
veralted translates back to outdated, which does capture the nature of the extension, is the most common-language / neutral term, without any of the baggage of the other 3 terms.

+1 for Outdated

Legacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system
In computing, a legacy system is an old method, technology, computer system, or application program, "of, relating to, or being a previous or outdated computer system," yet still in use.

Obsolete
A better alternative is available so this is now deemed redundant. Will probably be discontinued in the next release.
No longer works as expected, or doesn't do anything at all.

Deprecated
... in this release, but no longer being developed or supported. Will be discontinued in the next release or two.
A "marker", saying that it should not be used, something else that has the same effect has been created.

In reply to by shoogle

I took the decision of removing .xml and I still strongly support it. I'm glad MuseScore 2 stopped to create badly named files.
There is a confusion for years between XML and MusicXML. The creation of the .musicxml extension has been the best thing which happens to MusicXML for years. Given the position of MuseScore, I strongly believe we should lead the pack and stop disseminating XML files. The ability to export to .xml on the command line is a joke. If you can handle calling MuseScore on the command line or writing a Makefile, then you can handle to rename a .musicxml to a .xml if you really need it. I still don't believe yet another option even if "advanced" is a good idea.

In reply to by Nicolas

Proplem with that, esp. on Windows:

  • Windows by default hides known extensions, so you can't change them at all.
  • Even if you setup the Windows Explorer to show known extensions (which I very much agree to be a Good Thing ™ in itself), a 'right-click, rename' still makes it difficult to change the extension as
    1. by default this selects the filename
    2. it is fiddly to get to the extension (yes, really!)
    3. it gives a warning about this change you'd have to dismiss

I don't have much insight on how Mac's Findfer (?) or the GUI tools on Linux hand this, on the Mac/Linux command line this indeed is very easy to do. In a Makefile it is possible, but less easy.

The problem/question came and stille comes up time and time again, having to tell uses numerous times that a simple rename is sufficient (in this case, but for converting e.g. an mscz into an mp3), and then in a next step explaining step-by-step how that is done on the given platform is just a waste of resources.

Although hiding it behind an advanced preference might not be the most brilliant idea, advanced users tend to know that they want or need and how to achieve it, it is the non-advanced ones that are more likely to stumble accross the need and struggle with the manual renaming.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.