Custom Key Signature Improvement?

• Jan 1, 2017 - 04:12

Why doesn't the custom key signature work in aesthetics and function? If I put Eb, Bb, and F# on the treble clef, it appears as Gb, Db, and A# on the bass clef, respectively. This is an improvement that can be made. It is shown in the file below.

test.mscz


Comments

One problem is that there is no standard to say which lines or spaces should be used. So you might not like the choices MuseScore makes. Probably better to have to specify it yourself for each clef.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Use the same lines that MS (and all western music writers) already uses for key signatures. If someone tries to put an F# on the bottom space of the treble clef, then have it jump up to the top line. Then in the other clefs the conversion would follow the exact same process it already does for display purposes. That would also make it easier for musicians to recognize the key rather than having to recognize the sharp or flat appearing on a different line/space than usual.

Why would you EVER do that?
I am not being 'snarky' or obnoxious.
I honestly want to know...
Why would you ever have a time signature like that... unless you are planning on making twelve tone music? (In which case don't think that is the proper way to notate it....)

In reply to by Unknown Prodigy

This would represent the "key" for, say, G harmonic minor, or certain middle eastern scales based on D. While the VAST majority - I mean like 99.99% - of Western musicians would be more accustomed to seeing a standard G minor key signature and expect to see accidentals on the F's where necessary and would almost certainly make numerous errors reading a score with a non-traditional key signature like this, there are undoubted some musicians whose training lies outside the standard Western music tradition who might be more accustomed to seeing key signature like this. And it is for that reason (among others) we do provide the capability.

But precisely because these are non-standard, it means that relying on any standard guesses as to how they should be adjusted for different clefs or transpositions is problematic. I might *guess* from this that the user expects sharps to always come before flats, and to always use the same lines and spaces as standard key signature. But who knows if any given non-Western music tradition that requires such key signatures actually works that way. Which is why I think there needs to be control over this.

For the cases where people are OK with using the same lines and spaces as standard Western key signatures, I could imagine us providing an interface where you don't specify the key signature itself but instead describe the scale and say if you want to see flats first, sharps first, or perhaps use some other simply-described rule, and MuseScore would understand how to represent that in any key or any clef based on that information. Since that particular scale is one of the most commonly-encountered examples, I could even imagine it being provided pre-configured.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

@ajlondon - twelve tone music is very often written with no key signature, even in transposing instruments, that's what the X key signature is for. By definition every note would be played natural and if unique with either a sharp or flat in the same tone row.

@Marc, I like the idea of having the option of defining a scale and MS automatically placing sharps and flats based upon user input. If the user wants to use non-standard locations of sharps and flats then they should have the option of writing their own signature including transposing them to other clefs. Perhaps in this case an undefined one could have the grayed out X on it like in the palette to indicate it is undefined.

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