Almost as good as Amadeus

• Feb 16, 2012 - 08:04

I’ve been using Amadeus for many years. MuseScore shows some real promise, but it’s missing a few key features.

First and foremost, and the real deal breaker for me – the ability to edit and delete a rest. I searched the forum to see how to do it and discovered you can’t. That’s kind of like selling a car with no reverse and saying “You don’t need it. Just drive to the corner and turn right, then right again at the next corner, then right again, then right one more time. That’s just as good as having reverse.” We make mistakes – we need an easy way to correct ‘em.

Second – accelerando and rallentando. I can select from measure, to measure and from tempo, to tempo.

Third – key signature change. When I change the key signature in Amadeus I have the option to transpose notes. If I select to transpose, I have the option to transpose up or down. I don’t see this in MuseScore. Is there really a point in being able to change the key signature from C to D# if everything else stays the same?

On the plus side, for a freeware program it looks much more polished than Amadeus does at $100.00. Multiple voices makes note entry, and reading the finished product, so much easier.


Comments

Of course you can edit a rest, and you can delete them in all voices except voice 1.

I've never used Amadeus, but obviously the way you enter notes and rests in MuseScore is different. Note (and rest) entry in MuseScore is based on the method used in Sibelius ie you start with a full bar rest, and as you add notes to the bar it is filled out with the appropriate number of rests.

The idea behind this is simple - in a bar you can either have sound or silence, but you cannot have nothing - sound is represented by notes and silence by rests. If you add a note the duration value of the rests decreases, and if you remove one, it increases. Once you get hold of this concept Note Entry in Musescore becomes a doddle.

To edit a rest directly select it and then select the time value you want it to be from the duration palette. MuseScore will then change that rest into 1 of that duration followed by others to fill up the bar.

And if you make a mistake you simply hit Undo and re-enter.

I'm not sure what you mean about accelerando and rallentando? As neither of these are currently implemented in the playback engine of MuseScore stipulating tempo is irrelevant, however it is possible to implement them by means of assigning Tempo text to each bar.

Want to transpose with a key signature change? That is done (funnily enough) from the Transpose dialogue where you can choose to transpose by key signature or interval.

So maybe you need to spend a little more time with MuseScore and find out how it does the things you do in Amadeus - after all, as you point out, ir is free :)

If you don't know how to do something and can't find it here, please ask.

Just another note on the idea of "the ability to edit or delete a rest". As mentioned, you definitely *can* cause rests to be changed or to be deleted, and it's not really indirect at all. Just click the rest and hit the key for the duration you would rather it be, and it is changed for you. The thing you are presumably seeing as being indirect is that you don't actually care about the rest; you care about moving the notes the follow earlier or later than they currently are. Well, if your goal is to change the time position of those notes, just *do that directly*. Trying to change the start time position of a note by changing what came before it - *that's* more like taking three lefts to make a right.

What you're describing, though, is a basic difference between the use model in Finale and in Sibelius, and it's the subject of quite a few threads from people who come to MuseScore expecting it to use the Finale use mode. But MuseScore follows Shelius, which is almost universally considered to be the easier-to-use program - except by people already accustomed to the Finale model (which I assume is what Amadeus uses; I've never heard of it). As someone who had to make the same adjustment, I'd say it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. Kind of like making an adjustment from British measurements to metric or vice versa.

And yes, there is a point to changing key signature without transposing the notes. I use this on ocass, such as if I write a passage all in one key signature even though it contains a passage that temporarily visits another key, and only later do I decide it's worth notating with an actual key signature change. But as noted, if your goal is to transpose the passage, you do that *directly*, via the ranspose

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

OK - let's say I have a half note c followed by a quarter note d and then a quarter note e. I decide it sounds better if I changed the c to a quarter note- musescore sticks a rest between the c and the d (amadeus by allegroassai / sincrosoft doesn't do this). I don't want a rest between the c and d - how do I delete it? I don't have time to do another forum search right now, but I have in the past and found other people asking the same question and told you can't.
I can change the duration of the rest between two notes from a single half to two quarters (the end result is actually no change, two quarters still equals a half) but how do I delete one of the quarter rests so I only end up with a single quarter rest between the 2 notes, or delete all the rests between the two notes?
And the process with Amadeaus is you start with an empty slate and fill it in. If I don't fill a measure it assumes a rest after the entry I make in playback, but it doesn't actually insert a rest at any point.

In reply to by Karlik

MuseScore, which uses Standard Music Notation will require enough events to add up a complete bar in voice one, always. MuseScore works from left to right, so if you need something moved earlier you have to do that. If you shorten the duration of an event, a rest will have to be added to fulfil the "whole Bar" concept, or another event inserted at that place-holder.

As to : " but I have in the past and found other people asking the same question and told you can't.", if it conforms to Standard Music Notation, with very few, esoteric exceptions, you can achieve it with MuseScore.

As to having enough time to do research, I guess you'll have to decide just what is important to you.

In reply to by xavierjazz

"As to having enough time to do research, I guess you'll have to decide just what is important to you."

You guys seem to have a bit of an attitude - if you read my comments it's not that I don't have time to do "research". I didn't have time to repeat the search I've already done so I can post links to the comments that have already been made. I've been trying to be nice, but a smart ass attitude like this makes it hard.

In reply to by Karlik

In this scenario I would

1. select the D
2. Hit Cut
3. Select the rest
4. Hit Paste

MuseScore would then shift the crotchet rest between the D and E

If you wanted it at the end of the bar you would select both the D and E before hitting cut.

It takes a bit of getting used to - I came to MuseScore from Finale whcih operates in a similar way to Amadeus, but now I am completely comfortable with it, although there are still the odd occasions when I would prefer the Finale method.

What would be even better is to be able to drag notes around horizontally in the bar and have them adjust with the rests automagically, but I don't suppose we will see that any time soon :)

In reply to by Karlik

The way MuseScore works, if you have a half note C followed by quarter noes D and E, then no change to the C will affect the D or E. The idea is, you didn't touch those notes, so they shouldn't move. You entered them on beats 3 and 4, and that's where they stay until *you* move them. MuseScore doesn't move notes without your permission If you shorten the C, then the rest is *necessary* to avoid moving the D and E earlier (also to avoid making the measure too short). If you *wish* to move the D and E earlier, then as I said, you don't do that *indirectly* by deleting the rest that came earlier; you simply move notes *directly* via cut and paste. Cut the notes from the old position, paste them to the new position (right on top of the rest).

So the answer is, you don't delete rests in an indirect attempt to move notes. if you want notes moved, you move them. Simple as that.

Yes, this is different than the way Amadeus apparently works. But different is not necessarily worse. It's just different. From your description, Amadeus sounds similar to Finale in this respect. As I said before, speaking from personal experience, once you get used to the change, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. Both models work just fine. MuseScore's model has the advantage of being similar to that of Sibelius, the single most poplar notation program and the undisputed leader in perceived usability among the major commercial programs. Hence, it is based on the world's most successful model, and it is also the model familiar to most people in the world. Give it a shot!

I must say, though I am sympathetic to the Finale note-entry approach, I find some of the points about Musescore compelling. The idea that a note belongs on beat 3 or beat 4 and changes to other beats shouldn't alter that... very good way of thinking about how Musescore works.

But the Finale approach is more like writing on paper. With paper and pencil, no symbols ever show up without my choosing to enter them. I can choose not to include bar lines, and I can add notes or rests between existing ones. In many way, that way of thinking makes more sense. It is also more like word processing! I would be extremely grateful if Musescore were to add a Finale-like note entry mode, ideally with the option of no bar lines, no measures at all.

All in all, it's important to remember that Musescore vs Amadeus or whatever isn't only a matter of $100 (or $600 for Finale). It's free as in FREEDOM because it is open-source GNU licensed and community developed and supported. That means you can use it on any system, share your files with others without hassle, have reliable access to updates, and even alter it yourself if you really want to. These things make it worth supporting even if other programs were $0 but still restricted in various ways.

In reply to by wolftune

And as mentioned in other threads, I too would support an *option* to have a more Finale / word processor - like mode as well as the current mode. There has even been considerable discussion already ln how such a mode cold possibly look. Again, I am not trying to say there woild be mo point in allowing that possibilty. Just that it is hardly *necessary* - anything you want to do can *already* be done, and on average, it,s no more clicks either way. But if we could save a click or two in certain cases by adding a new mode, sure, why not.

In reply to by wolftune

While I do appreciate the suggestions, I lost interest in the software at the comment "As to having enough time to do research, I guess you'll have to decide just what is important to you."

I'm sure you guys put a lot of time and effort into the software, and I'm assuming that means you want people to use it? "Free" doesn't give you the right to be jerks. IF you had read my comments you would have seen that in my first comment I said "I searched the forum to see how to do it and discovered you can’t.". I did the research.
In my second comment I said " I don't have time to do another forum search right now, but I have in the past and found other people asking the same question and told you can't." To highlight I said "ANOTHER" forum search and "BUT I HAVE IN THE PAST". I did the research.
You took one comment that I made and quoted it entirely out of context. I have to to assume this was to "win" what you perceive as an arguement rather than a discussion.
The software may be free, but you still have treat the people using it as customers and show us at least the same amount of respect that we show you. I've waited 24 hours for something that at least resembles an apology but nothing.

I've unstalled the software and as far as I'm concerned the topic is closed.

In reply to by Karlik

Karlik,

One guy replied not paying attention to your exact post. Reading into plain text is hard to decipher attitude and emotion.

Most people are helpful and friendly. You could have done more to come across as less antagonist, but your only real problem was taking some random guy's post too personally. None of these people are necessarily the creators of the software, we're just people like you on the forum. Some people may be more encouraging and helpful than others. It's senseless to give up on great software because some random person you interacted with upset you. Some of the other people were trying to be helpful. You can't treat people here as though they are the paid tech-support representatives from Musescore. They don't represent Musescore, they represent only themselves. You are complaining to them and threatening to not use the software, but they don't care because they aren't Musescore, they're just random people. The Musescore community as a whole is super supportive and wants to welcome you.

In reply to by wolftune

"Teaching beginning composition to students, it is nice to be able to be open-ended, i.e. put down the symbols you want as you consider them, instead of having the program do automatic things for you."

But that's just the point - MuseScore is *not* doing automatic things for you. It is leaving your notes exactly where you put them. Change a note early in the measure, and notes later in the measure sty on exactly the same beats as you entered them - nothing is done to them at all. If MuseScore were to change the beat positions of notes without your ever touching them - *that* would be doing automatic things for you.

It is indeed a different way of looking at things than a word processor, but it's a more *musical* way of looking at things. Each note has a specific beat position; this is not true of words in a text document. So it makes musical sense that if you want to change the beat position of a note, you do it yourself, rather than expecting MuseScore to "do automatic things for you" and change the beat position of notes you never touched. And as I have observed, it's the same model used by the single most popular notation program in the entire world (Sibelius).

For both of these reasons - the fact that MuseScore's model is both more *musical* than that of a word processor, and also the fact that is similar to that of the industry leader - this is a *great* model to use with composition students. It teaches them to think musically, not in terms of meaningless symbols being pushed around by the program without their ever having touched them, and it also prepares them to use other notation programs if for some reason they find they need to at some point.

Again, sure, as an extra enhancement some day, adding a mode that treats the music like meaningless symbols and moves them around automatically like a word processor does might be nice occasionally.

As for the OP choosing not to use a very wonderful application just because he didn't like the wording of a response given to him by a fellow user of the software - his loss.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

It matters not that the inserted rests keep the notes where they are in the timing. By doing something automatic, what I mean is similar to the fact that Musescore automatically adjusts spacing and stem direction. For students just understanding writing their own music, some people argue that they should use paper and pencil and have to learn things like how long stems should be. If the program does it for you, then you aren't learning to think about that. I'm not going *that* far with it, but it is less visually surprising to see a stem automatically placed than to have rests automatically inserted. It is the appearance of extra symbols without being entered that is counter-intuitive. Students can get used to it, fine, but it *is* doing something automatic.

The fact is, music is not all strictly metric! Musescore's behavior is strictly metric. For that matter, so is Finale. Notion, on the other hand, actually has the ability to put any amount of time in a measure or to compose measureless music. Given that measureless meterless music is possible in reality, ideally any music notation program should support that. The workarounds of doing hidden time-signature changes and hiding barlines is far from optimal. It is Musescore's forcing of users to think strictly metrically that is the problem. It is just fine for strictly metric music, but pushing people that way creates an artificial box to creative thinking. It is *not* the case that thinking musically requires thinking metrically. Even in metered music, one might be emphasizing the melodic contour rather than the metric hierarchy — and in that case, the Finale behavior is preferable. Music programs shouldn't tell the user how to think, they should facilitate whatever mode the user wants.

Having said all that, I acknowledge that the strictly metric way of thinking is a fine approach in itself.

In reply to by wolftune

True, adding a rest after shortening a note is doing *something* automatic. But *not* adding the rest would be doing something *else* automatic: changing the beat position of all following notes in the measure. No matter what approach you take, something is being done automatically; it's just a question of what. In some cases, one behavior might seem more surprising; in other cases, the other would. As I keep saying, it's really six of one, a half dozen of the other. And yes, ideally, a program would support both modes. As far as I know, no programs currently do - this could eventually be a coup for MuseScore.

But I definitely do agree that ability to create truly meter-less measure would be nice. Having to count the beats and set the actual time signature and possibly hide the regular time signature is indeed quite artificial. To me, though, that's kind of a separate issue. Even if there were a way to create a meter-less measure, we could still argue about whether shortening a note should have the possibly unexpected effect of adding a compensating rest or whether it should have the possibly unexpected effect of changing the beat position of every subsequent note in the measure.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

A meter-less non-measured music doesn't have a "beat" to move notes from. Measureless music is more of an order of events. There can even be music with no marked timing (I like to use stemless filled heads for that). I am quite certain in saying that for this situation, the adding of rests is NOT appropriate. It is ONLY in relation to a steady pulse that the idea of keeping a note at a certain timing makes sense. We can have pulsed meterless music, pulsed measureless music, and even non-pulsed music. The latter should be possible, and it definitely should not have extra rests added when notes are inserted or altered. And the same thinking that relates to that type of music should still ideally be supported even when we add pulse and meter.

In reply to by wolftune

Ah, so the distinction you are really making is pulsed versus non-pulsed, then, not metered versus non-metered. As I see it, if there is a pulse, then if you have a half note followed by a quarter, that quarter is on beat 3, meter or no meter. But if you are assuming no pulse as well as no meter, then indeed, the behavior you mention makes sense by default.

Still, I'd say that if/when MuseScore provided a mode where edits caused notes to shift, you'd just need to turn that mode on when editing pulse-less music.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc, I think we're totally on the same page. The options would be great. The only clarification is: the thought process is different when focusing on contour and not on pulse. So even when the end result is metered pulsed music, it is a different compositional thought process to think "this note belongs at this pulse in the musical flow" than to think "this note is what should happen after this previous note stops." They are both valid ways of thinking, and they might lead to different resulting compositions. The current Musescore behavior favors the former perspective. Thus, the option that the OP and I both would like to see is not purely for familiarity nor for only pulseless music. It's about fitting one's mindset. But I don't see this as a make-or-break thing for Musescore. Musescore is absolutely the best choice, especially as a teacher because it's Libre license means I can freely promote it to all my students without hesitation. I'm happy to work with Musescore as is, though I'm sympathetic to the other form of note-entry perspective.

In reply to by wolftune

The idea of Musescore respecting the temporal location of notes so that changes to one note don't affect later notes... this supposition doesn't match the behavior of time-signature changes. Time signature changes insert extra rests or delete notes. In other words, they alter the timing of later notes not in the measure being changed. It seems that tyranny of the metered-measure is Musescore's perspective— not respecting the timing of notes.

In reply to by wolftune

Well, I said that changes to a *note* don't affect other notes unecessarily - I never said change to *time signature* wouldn't affect anything. Althoug actually, even a time signature change currently respects the current time position of notes relative to the each measure. That is, a note in measure 22, beat 3 remains at that position even after a change in time signature from 4/4 to 5/4 or vice versa. Of course, changing to 2/4 will result in the note being swallowed up, just as surely as changing the first note in measure 22 to a whole note will swallow up what is on beat 3. The key word here is that changes aren't made *unnecessarily*. If you change results in the note no longer having a alid place to be, then it will be swallowed up, yes. And I believe the trunk already has, or is planned to have, support for time signature changes that reflow the music, so If you prefer to have that definition of fixed time position (same number of ticks fm start of piece, rather than same position within the measure), you should be able to have it.

Anyhow, the phrase "tyranny of metered-measure" makes no sense given that 99.99% of all music that is likely to notated in MuseScore is metered. The fact that things are awkward for the tiny minority of music that is not meered is unfrotunate and should be addressed at some point, but not at the expense of the vast majority of music, which *is* metered.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

As I said before, the process of composing that matters as much as the result.

This all came up via a very simple example: my student had a piece in 4/4 where but wrote notes that really should be 6/8 because the music he was thinking needed to be in 6/8. It worked to just copy and past a whole bunch of notes into a new piece, but I couldn't SHOW him how some of his sections were really 6/8 and others were 4/4 by simply changing time-signatures. On paper, I would have just erased some barlines and written in new ones and new time-sigs and viola. Musescore right now doesn't allow that.

I say "tyranny of the metered measure" because that is exactly what it is. Musescore absolutely insists that everything be represented by measure. Despite various perspectives that might prefer to think of exact timing or of event-order as more of a focus, Musescore is rigid in how it functions.

Anyway, is "99.99% of all music that is likely to notated in MuseScore" metered strictly because music is inherently that way, or because music that doesn't fit that mold is music that people will hesitate to notate in Musescore?

Maybe most Western music students are compelled to think in measures because they are rigidly taught that way by conservative teachers and methods, and Musescore is just following that... Incidentally, I love that Musescore allows customized time-signatures at least.

In reply to by wolftune

Yes, I believe that a facility should exist to let you change time signatures and have durations adjust themselves automatically. tis was actually one of my very first requests on this forum a year or so ago! but to me, it's a totally separate issue. MuseScore should provide a "transform" function that has this effect, but it would be totally automatic; it has nothing to do with what happens when you enter notes in note entry mode.

As fo why most music is written with meter, I am not interested in discussing the philosophy behind that. I am just stating a fact - most music *is* written that way, and thus most users benefit from behaviors that support the way music is normally written.

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