polymetric

Surely the split and join measure functions in MuseScore 2.0 make an insert mode unnecessary?

The problem with adding an insert mode is that it goes completely against the current architecture and data structures of the program.

In order to do that, MuseScore would have to be rewritten from scratch. So this is not likely to be implemented soon, if at all.

You can change a single measure's actual duration, see http://musescore.org/en/handbook/measure-operations

First a general comment:

If you really think through the consequences, I think you will realize you don't *really* want a scorewriter to be as inefficient as pencil and eraser. If it were that inefficient, why bother? You rely on the fact that it know how notes are shaped so you don't have to draw them by hand. You rely on the fact that it has some concept of when to beam versus when to flag eighth notes. And you rely on the efficiencies made possible by the fact that MuseScore "understands" music in other ways. The fact that it can playback, that it can transpose, that it can copy a sequence of notes to a different metric position and automatically figure out how to break up notes across barlines, etc - these are only possible because MuseScore "understands" music at some level and isn't just a drawing program.

Now, if you use erase a quarter rest in a score made with pencil and paper, you are actually left with two problems you then have to fix manually. One is that the measure now doesn't have enough beats in it. The other is that there is now a spacing issue - a hole left in the score.. You have to fix both those issues manually. If you want the subsequent notes to move to the left to take up the physical space created by the erased rest, you have to erase those notes as well one by one and move them each over one by one. And you have to decide for yourself how many notes to move. If you move a note from the next measure into this one, you may need to break \it up into two notes tied across the barline, and you'll need to do this manually. And you have to decide how to account for the now missing beat. You'll either need to change a time signature, add a quarter note/rest somewhere else down the line, or extend the length of an existing note by a beat. Or you'll have to accept musically incorrect notation.

So, do you *really* want MuseScore to work that inefficiency?

As it is, it takes all of five clicks (click first note to move, shift click last, ctrl-C, click new location, ctrl-V) to take a sequence of notes of any length and move it to the left - thus accomplishing everything described above very directly.

Now, would it be possible for a new command to be implemented that did some of this automatically? Sure. THis would cut the sequence down from 5 clicks to two (click rest, hit ctrl-delete or whatever). But given that MuseScore cannot guess what you actually want to do about the missing beat or how many notes you want moved left, chances are very low that it would do *exactly* what you intended. What do you think the chances are that you'd be able to fix it all up to get exactly what you want in fewer than three more clicks on average? Based on experience with other programs that do provide such a mode, I can tell you it's pretty low. You spend at least as much time - probably more on average - trying to get the results you wanted anyhow.

Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to implement such a command - maybe one that automatically moved the rest of the notes in the measure to the left, and added a corresponding rest at the end (or extended the length of the last note/rest) - just for those few cases where that happened to be exactly where you wanted, or close enough to provide an advantage. But it does help to put this in perspective. We are *not* talking about creating a much more efficient way of working. We are talking about a change in the specific sequence of clicks you'd need to achieve a given goal but on average it would not really be any faster.