Add bari sax and other insturments back to main list
I'm not sure of the status of the redesigned instrument list, but as things stand, it seems soprano and baritone saxophone have been relegated to "extended" status. These are too common in the jazz world for that. A number of other common band / orchestra should also be returned to main list status: alto flute, Eb / alto / bass clarinets, and contrabassoon.
On the other hand, a number of instruments that do make the main list I have a hard time believing are so common that they couldn't be moved to the extended list - basically, all the "ethnic" instruments (gemshorn, etc) plus historical instruments (chalumeau, viola da gamba), plus a few oddities like sarrusophone and wagner tuba. I guess one could quibble these all day long, so I'm not strongly arguing they be removed. But I will say, if duduk is in, baritone saxophone deserves to be in too :-)
GIT commit: 3543170
Comments
The thing is Marc if we make a special case for Jazz instruments, all the other genres will want more than the basic instruments displayed.
If you bear in mind that probably most people using MuseScore are not specialists of any kind, then the current organisation fills the bill, adequately.
There are several duduks and only one is listed generally, likewise viols there is a whole family but only Viola da Gamba which is the generic name for the family is listed generally.
This is also a good argument for the third category layer which would help with organisation.
The other thing is that if we are moving towards templates as the default score creation method rather than generating a custom score each time, then these kinds of problems will not be so apparent.
We just need Werner to commit to no more file format changes so we can start implementing that (hint hint).
I'd still bet far more people (on the order of 100 to 1) will want to write scores that include baritone saxophone than that include any duduk. The idea of including just one or two members of each family might have a certain logic, but I think it's not a good idea in practice. There is no getting the the fact that *far* more MuseScore users will want access to members of the saxophone family than members of the duduk family, and anyone who wants alto and tenor will almost certainly also want soprano and baritone. These are *not* obscure instruments.
I also think we *should* think in terms of genres. We should identify the most common genres written in by MuseScore users and make sure the most common instruments in those genres are easily accessed. Virtually every single high school in America has a concert band and a jazz band, and the instruments I listed are part of these ensembles. So if the genre-based approach makes it into the instrument list, I'd be satisfied to see the saxohpnes listed in the jazz genre, the others on the band / prchestral genre, and I won't care if they show up in a generic list. But if the generic list is all there is, these extremely common instrument simply *must* be part of it.
The temptation to dive into a religious war is rather strong, but I'll try to resist and stick to some general observations, perhaps of some interest.
Knowing near to nothing about jazz and jazz practice, I entirely trust Marc's judgement about saxophones sizes.
Having spent half of my life playing Renaissance and Baroque wind instruments -- before turning to viola da gamba --, I agree that no 'ealy music' player would expect instruments like gemshorn, crumhorn, Rauschpfeife or chalumeau to be in the top-level list. So, if room is needed there, I would agree they are 'expendable'... (and I also believe the presence of an instrument which is almost never played today, like the sarrusophone, to be arguable).
About genres: I'm trying to make MS ver. 2.0 as suitable for 'early music' as possible and I'm promoting it among my colleagues (with mixed results so far, as they tend to, hmmm, look toward the past...?); anyway, an increase of interest for MS in this area is to be expected. Then, I believe that instruments which are not entirely main-stream but have, for instance, their own cursus in conservatories, like viola da gamba, should remain in the top-level list.
Thanks,
M.
Yes, I think that makes sense.
I'd suggest we consider re-building this list from the ground up. Decide which genres we most want to support in this way, then for each genre decide which instruments to include. I'm still very unclear on whether the whole genre subdivision is possibly happening for 2.0 or not, but either way, I'd say it's worth going through this exercise. We'll need to do so if the genre lists happen, but even if they don't, it gives us a criterion for constructing the master list.
As a starting point, I'd say the classical genre should include everything in a typical orchestra or concert band score plus guitar, piano, and organ, the jazz genre everything in a typical big band chart plus flute, clarinet, soprano saxophone, flugelhorn, and a few extra percussion instruments like congas and timbales, pop/rock should include a variety of guitars, basses, drums, keyboards, and drums, plus maybe saxophones, trumpets., and trombones (or not). Voices should be part of all of these genres.
Other genres presumably worth supporting would be bluegrass, early music, a variety of "ethnic" ensembles deemed of sufficiently widespread interest, etc.
The master list should be union of the genre lists. I suppose we could possibly define instruments for a genre but then not incorporate its instruments into the master list if it is deemed not sufficiently popular.
If we then also decide to include a few instruments in the master list that really are not common in any particular genre but seem worth including for whatever reason - like, oh, say, "telephone ring" or some such that is popular mostly because it is part of the GM set - that's fine too. In fact, it probably makes sense to include everything from the GM list - or at least, all the "real" instruments (maybe not sawtooth wave et al).
It probably sounds like I am talking about a very large master list, but I don't think so. The 1.3 list may not have been perfect, but it probably meets the above description already and is not terribly large despite containing a number of entries that probably needn't be there (eg, eight different recorders, musical saw, chains, 11-string alto guitar, boy soprano).
Marc the remit given for the current Instrument list was MusicXML 3 compatibility, which, although it goes a long way towards achieving is still not there as there are getting on for a thousand instruments in the MusicXML list.
You are also thinking too parochially - the US is not the only country in the world, although, sadly, it very often believes it is. Certainly in the UK the norm for concert bands is just alto and tenor sax. Given that MuseScore is being used by musicians in a wide variety countries and in genres ranging from ethnic music through to full orchestra you need to be taking a wider perspective.
If MusicXML 3 compatibility is to be retained then the list is going to grow rather than shrink, which is why I proposed this new list structure, which Mark Stanton is currently working on quietly in the background.
As I said before, the switch to a template driven rather than an instrument list driven Create Score dialogue will mean that for most users working their way through lists of instruments to create a score will be a thing of the past, but we need Werner's commitment not to change the file structure before we can start working on that.
Sorry to keep pestering, but I have to add an observation which is collateral but may give some insight (and broaden some perspective...) for the instrument list too: templates.
Templates are a good idea and I agree they should be there for sure. However, I found them of little help for my specific purposes, for using MuseScore in 'early music' in general and, even more generally, for most uses outside the 'main-stream' areas, I suspect.
I stick to relatively few genres, namely Baroque sonatas for one instr. (or voice) + B.c., Baroque duos (for 2 instrs. without B.c.) and XVI c. secular polyphony. Even within this rather restricted catalogue, I rarely have the occasion to recycle an already created template (created by me or by someone else): the variety is too high and the 'standardization' is so low that each piece has its rather unique requirements (I almost always recycle styles, though).
I suspect this to be more or less true for most non-standard areas. One could argue that non-standard areas tend to be niche markets and therefore collateral. I believe however that users with non-standard applications might be more attracted by MuseScore than other, for the greater and quicker response from the community, for the higher probability to get special issues addressed by the dev team, for the unbeatable price and so on. So, non-standard areas risk to be a standard for MuseScore!
Summary: kudoes for templates and their usefulness for 'standard' situations. At the same time, please keep the instrument list active and make it as optimal as possible too for 'the rest of us out there'.
Thanks,
M.
Actually, I was not meaning to imply soprano and baritone saxophones were common in US concert bands - they are, however in jazz bands. I was lumping those two bands together. So it is not a case of US-only thinking, but a case of thinking jazz shouldn't be a second class citizen here. And I'll stand by that. Bass clarinet is a better example of an instrument that needs to be added for concert band.
Just because the instrument list is going to grow overall doesn't mean the default set of instruments need grow. As I said, it really wasn't broken for 1.3. All I'm asking is that we not *remove* certain instruments that any jazz musician anywhere in the world can tell you are common and expected. And no, I'm not asking for special treatment for jazz, either. Again, I think we should identify "major" genres and be sure not to exclude the instruments most commonly used by them. I doibt this would result in adding any instruments over 1.3 - just change which instruments are eliminated.
Yes, templates are great, and I push for their use all the time. But the basic instrument list has to work for most use cases as well.
And FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if it really doesn't turn out to be just those half dozen instruments I already listed. Add back alto flute, Eb, alto, and bass clarinets, contrabassoon, and soprano and baritone saxophones. Those are literally the only instruments removed from 1.3 that I think are issues for classical or jazz. And I even proposed other instruments that could stand to be removed instead if we are so concerned about the length of this list.
Since I was looking at Sibelius for other reasons today, I decided to take a look at how they handle the instrument list. Looks a lot like MuseScore in overall layout, of course. They implement the "genre" idea quite nicely, I think: instead of just a checkbox to switch between "common" instruments and all instruments (which is essentially what we have), they have a drop down that includes those two options plus a few genre-specific options like "orchestral", "jazz", "rock and pop" etc, each of which filters the full list in its own way to show only the instruments commonly used in those genres, but still divided by instrument groups. I approve heartily of this design overall. They actually change the instrument groupings according to genre, which seems overkill and potentially confusing (eg, duduk shows up under "Mid East" if you choose the "world" genre, but under "woodwinds" if you choose "all instruments"). But the basic idea of the drop down to choose genre, with "all" and "common" being just two options - nice and straightforward.
Anyhow, FWIW, their default "common instruments" set includes soprano & bari saxes plus bass clarinet and contrabassoon but not alto flute or Eb or alto clarinets. And I'd agree those last three were more on the bubble. By that reckoning, I'd actually have put contrabassoon in that category as well. Eb and alto clarinets show up in the "band" genre, alto flute and Eb clarinets (but not alto clarinets) show up in the "orchestral" genre.
Also, their "common" instrument set includes no woodwinds not commonly found in high school music programs (concert + jazz bands, orchestra) aside from two recorders and harmonica. That is, no duduk unless you select World Instruments (or All Instruments). And no sarrusophone anywhere, even with All Instruments selected :-)
My understanding is that MarkRS is working on exactly what you described Marc. He will add one or more "tags" on instrument in instruments.xml. And a combo box to filter the list according to these tags, or display the full list. Tags could be "orchestral", "jazz", "common" etc...
Fantastic! Then I guess we'll get to fine tune which instruments go in which lists. I'd still argue for soprano & bari sax plus bass clarinet gong in "common" or whatever the default is. But it will be less important.
baritone sax and bass clarinet are common in concert band (not just jazz genre).
Last time I was in contact with Mark he had figured out a way of enabling the user to structure the instrument list completely flexibily by the use of XML tagging in each instrument definition. This would solve many problems.
I've not had an opportunity to try his code yet though.
Genre is implemented. (Thanks MarkRS) There is probably some work to do on the classification but the implementation should work. A forum post to come to explain how it works. Please test.
Baritone and Soprano sax are in the "common" genre and displayed by default. And the duduks are out of this list and only appears in "All" and "Ethnic" instruments. This bug is fixed.
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.