Templates are outdated

I expressed concern about it here , although I don't think it's limited to the one template.

Yes I have come across this too.

I will take on the task of making sure all supplied templates are 2.0 compatible.

It will help to keep me amused during the long summer break ;)

How will you do this though? See my comment .

By loading each one and then processing it through MuseScore 1.2 if necessary.

It will then be uploaded here for people to check all is OK before being packed up in a ZIP archive to be included with the official version of 2.0.

Templates are only MSCX files after all.

This is not part of the code so marking it Miscellaneous.

Ah, okay.

If it's just templates, that should be fine. I was thinking about the demo scores.

You can get them added to updated in 2.0 by forking a repo on GitHub, modify the files, check/test, commint and then do a pull request. Pretty easy, esp with the "GitHub for Windows" stuff.
If you don't like to do that GitHub stuff yourself, send them to me and I'll do it (after vacation, so in about 3 weeks from now), I have an account and a museScore fork already.

I've now got an account and MuseScore Fork.

May need talking through the other stuff as there doesn't appear to be a Templates folder in the Repo

It certainly is in my fork, in share/templates

I will look further then

I suspect they have become corrupt too. Is anything else wrong in the below report?

1. 'New…'.
2. 'Create new score from template'.
3. 'Lead Sheet'.
4. 'Finish'.
5. 'OK' to unreliable score warning.
6. Press quaver shortcut twice.
7. Click on first rest.
8. Press 'B' seven times.

Result: Seven quavers, with a quaver rest in between them (see attached PDF).

Using MuseScore 2.0 Nightly Build (966e628) - Mac 10.7.4.

Have now got theGitHUb thing set up - sent UK Brass Band template up for inclusion in next release.

Am going to have to hold off on some of these as the implications of tests on the UK Brass Band template indicate MuseScore 2.0 is not importing templates with transposing instruments not in concert pitch incorrectly.

See this issue #17227: Transposing instruments do not have correct key signature when score created from template

I have resaved and checked some of the ones not including transposing instruments.

Is there any progress on solving issue #17227?

I'm effectively at a standstill now with this as the above issue and #17451: Jazz Big Band and Jazz Combo Templates crash MuseScore are preventing further progress.

I can commit the few templates which are not affected by these issues, but it seems better to hold off until all template issues have been fixed.

I have resumed work on this.

Also see this discussion http://musescore.org/en/node/21761

Just a note to let you know work has started on this.

We're just waiting for Werner to commit the template file structure for 2.0

How are we doing with finalising the file structure?

Can we begin reworking templates?

The reason I'm asking is because I have 2 months of free time coming up.

I just announced MuseScore 2.0 beta1 on the mailing list.
It would be great to have a couple of templates compatible with this version. I believe it's not worth having 100 templates, so let's focus on the most likely requested templates.

According to previous discussion, http://musescore.org/en/node/21761. Here is my list. Between parenthesis, the less urgent.

1 - General

1. Treble clef, piano sound, full ambitus
2. Bass clef, piano sound, full ambitus

2 - Choir, Vocal

1. Choir SATB
2. Choir SATB with Piano
3. (Choir SATB with Organ)
4. Choir SATB closed score
5. (Choir SATB closed score with Piano)
6. (Choir SATB with Organ)
7. Voice + Piano

3 - Solo

1. Piano
2. Guitar
3. Guitar tablature
4. Guitar standard + tablature linked
5. (Lute tablature) (linked or not, something to show off the work on tablature)

4 - Jazz

1. Jazz Leadsheet
2. Jazz Big Band
3. Jazz Combo

5 - Orchestra

1. Classical orchestra (based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_orchestra)
2. Romantic orchestra
3. Modern orchestra

6 - Band

1. Rock band : Voice, backing vocal, Guitar lead, Rhythmic guitar, bass, drums
2. Brass Band (I would make it larger if needed, see http://musescore.org/en/node/24666, it's easy to remove one or two instrument). (Not sure the "UK" is really needed).

I'm not sure about:

• MuseScore 1.3 has 3 salvation army specific templates. Not sure how much we need them.
• Concert band is a can of worms. I would not add it at all since it has so many different instrumentation depending on the country.
• Hymn, I'm not sure it looks a lot like SATB closed to me but I'm not an expert.

Would probably be a good idea to include a number and category name in the filename so the templates are easy to find.

Last point, it's probably ok if templates do have measures and even system/page breaks so they look good if opened in MuseScore.

I suspect UK brass band will be needed - there are a lot of brass bands worldwide using this format.

Personally I don't feel qualified to produce this - I think we need a brass band specialist to do it.

To that list I would add Organ, and a Grand Staff Piano, and maybe an Unmetrical template which some people have asked for.

I'm not certain that Choir SATB with organ is required - very few scores for that genre use a 3 stave part for the organ, so it could be incorporated into 1 generic Choir SATB with Keyboard template.

I will undertake to do the keyboard and choir templates, and the Classical Orchestra.

Regarding the "solo" category, is it a typo to have "Guitar" listed twice, but no "Piano"?

There is a common format used in the US at least called "PVG" - "Piano, Voice, Guitar". Vocal + piano with guitar fretboard symbols above the vocal part. Maybe that's not really different from the "Voice + piano" listed already - you don't have to actually use any fret diagrams?

One thing that I think we might want to hold off at least slightly on is regarding #25247: Clean up default style settings. If we find ourselves having to make the same style setting change for a whole bunch of templates, we should consider whether the style setting itself needs to be updated. Eg, if a whole bunch of templates are moving voltas higher, maybe voltas should just be higher by default?

I think initial work on templates should focus on setting up the staves and making style settings that are truly unique to that particular template (eg, raising volta to account for chord symbols makes sense only in templates for music where chord symbols are used). For any style setting changes that are worth making to the defaults, let's discuss doing that way instead?

I am finding that I have to set the System setting for Brackets to 0 to get the square bracket for choral parts to look right.

The duplicated guitar is my mistake. Fixed.

PVG is indeed covered by voice + piano. FWIW, I don't know many people actually writing PVG music... but that's another discussion and maybe MuseScore 2.0 will change that.

The remark about styles makes perfect sense. @churchorganist bracket distance is a good example of Marc's remark. In MuseScore 1.3 the distance was 0.25, currently it's 0.8. I'm not sure why, but I guess we should change it back to a lower value in the code itself, and not in a template. Any thought? Let's keep on the discussion here #25247: Clean up default style settings

Here are some of the ones we require plus a couple of Unmetrical templates.

Please try them out and make any changes necessary.

In MuseScore 1.3 and earlier I removed the page size tags from the templates so that new scores would appear with US Letter or A4 depending on the user's default preference rather than the default of whoever created the template.

I suggest we do the same for MuseScore 2.0 templates. I just means manually editing the final templates with a text editor and removing the "page-height" and "page-width" tags. (This is also part of the reason the template files are mscx instead of mscz).

Great idea on the page size! Also makes sense to choose values for the min/max system distance (replacing old system distance / page fill threshold) that work well for either size where possible.

Woudn't it be usefull to have a 'save as template' option, that would only store any non-default setting? And stores in the templates folder rather han the scores folder by default?

For the most part, it's already the case that only non-default settings are saved to scores. But I do like the idea of the automatic selection of the template folder.

I think it does write more, check the attached,
page height, -width, -margins, spatium, showInvisible, showUnprintable, showFrames, showMargins, all are stored (not more though)

Yes, I said "for the most part" :-) - "most" here meaning, style settings as opposed to page layout.

I think for most user-created termplates, you *do* want page layout settings saved, but I suppose that might indeed be true mostly in cases where they are non-default. I suppose there could be a tick box in the "save as template" dialog, but that might be hard to implement (not sure if it's easy to add a custom control to a file save dialog).

It's not possible to add controls to the native file dialog. Again, discussions about a save template features, in another feature request.

Regarding not mentioning the page size in the template, I'm not sure if it's a good idea. For example, it would be better if the orchestra template are in A3 than in "nothing" and then end up in a A4/Letter because it's the default on the platform. Eventually we could add some code to test the size, check if it's A4 and switch to letter if it's the default on the user computer...

Yes Nicolas, I had thought that some of the Orchestral templates wouldn't fit on A4, never mind letter.

Templates intended for small page sizes (such as Hymn) or oversize templates (such as the large orchestra templates ChurchOrganist is discussing) should included page size information.

With previous releases of MuseScore, I only removed page size info for templates intended to fit on either US Letter or A4. I admit it was a hack but it seemed to work well since just about everyone selects US Letter or A4 as their default page size. Code to test the page sizes of templates sounds like a good solution, but I wouldn't say it was a priority for the upcoming 2.0.

To make it easier to find the templates, and for later if we create a UI to choose templates it would be good to name templates like this 04-Jazz-Jazz_Leadsheet.mscx.

04: a number per category, see the table in #19. It will be easier to sort them.
Jazz: the template category in english. Use _ for spaces if needed
Jazz_Leadsheet: the name of the template in english. Use _ for spaces if needed

I have submitted updated jazz termplates:

https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/1220

OK - expect a pull request tomorrow lunchtime :)

For the current list see here https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/tree/master/share/templates

If you are working on a template, let others know to avoid double work.

The best way to generate a template is as follow.

1. Run MuseScore with -t flag on the command line
2. Create the score with enough empty measure to fill 1st page
3. Change style, text style, adjust barline height, bracket
4. If necessary change the spatium. Less than 1.125mm is not readable, keep it real
5. If you need your score to be bigger than A4 or Letter, change the size in page layout
6. Save your score as mscx
7. Open the mscx with a text editor, if your score is A4 or letter and not landscape, you can remove the page-layout section. If you want your score to be A4 or letter landscape depending the user system setting, remove the content of page-layout and replace it by 1

I will be submitting the ones I did before....

All choral templates

Piano
Organ
Classical Orchestra

and an Unmetrical template for people transcribing plainsong etc

Having looked at the templates supplied in the latest commit - b833826 it seems we have two conflicting numbering systems here.

The one Nicolas has presented in #19 which starts at 1

An anonymous system beginning at 0

Which is it to be?

And skipping the 2...guess a simple renaming if these first 4 templates should do?

Yes but which way?

Beginning at 0 or beginning at 1??

New Choral and Orchestral templates added PR1224

In the SATB closed score templates, shouldn't the trackname for Soprano/Alto be that rather then just Soprano? and for Tenor/Bass be that rather than Bariton? I think at least the MuseScore App would get thrown off by it and wrongly show Soprano and Bariton, probably also parts.
Also the max. pitch that of the higher, the min. pitch that of the lower voice?

Good point.

Will amend accordingly.

I merged the PR. Please do another with the fixed. Some remarks:

1/ I deleted the Transposed template for orchestra. I miss the point of having it. It's just a click away with the concert pitch button.

2/ Glad to see that the closed scores are now using two instruments. I wanted to report it but forgot.

3/ I renamed some of the templates.

4/ centering instrument name doesn't work ( see SATB close + piano) and it's too late to fix it. So let's not use this style.

centering instrument name doesn't work

OK I'll amend that to read horizontally

@ChurchOrganist it's amended for instrument names already.
Make sure to get the latest templates from master

And I've now amended the ranges of the closed score SATB templates to match the combined ranges from instruments.xml, see PR #1227

Which were wrong :)

Instruments.xml has now had the vocal ranges amended

Let's close this task. We have quite some templates now.

Great! Kudos to all :)

Job well done I think :)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.