Daily Log plug in

• Sep 10, 2020 - 03:24

Hi. I have just installed Jeetee's Daily Log plug in. It's working and it looks nifty. There are a couple of questions? I would like to set a shortcut but can plug ins be started by shortcut?

Jeetee - This is great. I am wondering how you decided to choose a format of yyyymmdd-hhmmss? Is this format compatible with some other device?


Open the plugin manager, click the plugin and the click the Define shortcut button. Be careful with this, it doesn't do a comparison with other shortcuts and don't assign a single letter unless you want the shortcut to run randomly while you are typing text.

the date/time format is standard in Europe.

In reply to by Rockhoven

Lock score is a feature added at some point after I created my shortcuts that allows someone (like a teacher) to prevent someone from editing a score. Since it was added after I made my custom shortcuts, MuseScore kinkly did not overwrite my shortcuts with the shortcut for the new feature.

FYI, if pressing shift+ a button gives you an alternate symbol, MuseScore reports that you pressed that symbol rather than shift+ the original symbol. This is mostly because things like shift + 1 = ! on our keyboards but this is not the case worldwide.

In reply to by mike320

Well, it's an incorrect suggestion by the manager because if you press shift you cannot use any number. You will get upper case (in this case ! is the case!) Ctrl+shift+1 cannot be recognize as such, at least on Linux Mint. This must be a problem with my OS.

In reply to by Rockhoven

Hold it. I think I spotted something. I see that when I made a new log the shortcut appeared as an alternative. But that same shortcut is also showing for a plug in called abc. I may have fumbled and done something wrong in the manager. I'll see if I can correct this.

In reply to by Rockhoven

Most of the time I'm on windows yes; but I don't see how this is relevant to the topic at hand.

In order to figure out your shortcut issues; do any of the other Ctrl+Shift shortcuts work for you? (Such as Ctrl+Shift+S for "Save As"). At least that way you can rule out a keyboard driver interaction issue.

Another shortcut that should be available by default is Ctrl+Alt+K or Ctrl+Alt+I

In reply to by jeetee

Yes, I do use shortcuts to get a new score and to save. Those are only using the Ctrl key. I'll do a check this afternoon on whether the Ctrl+shift commands work. This is really nice to have. Did you develop this for your own personal use? Are you willing to continue development of this? If not, are you open to sharing this code with another developer?

Jeetee - I have some time to test this plug in. I don't have a shortcut. Do I have everything enabled in the plug in manager that is required? When I view the plug in manager, I see create-daily-log and create-daily-log-configuration. I used the configuration at set up, then I disabled it. All I have checked is the create-daily-log. Are those the only ones connected with this plug in? I see some others on the list. Do I need to have configuration enabled when setting shortcut?

The other thing I could do is enable some other plug in and create a shortcut to see if shortcuts works on other plug ins. Can you suggest a plug in and a shortcut?

I'm very happy with this plug in. An artists ideas and inspirations come randomly. Not everything is in order. I can be working on one or two other projects and get an idea for a third. With your plug in, I can simply hit Ctrl+Alt+K and I get a plain grand staff. I can then make a note of the random idea and develop it a little. If I need a key or time sig, I can apply those if and only when needed. I need no title because this fills the field with the current date and time AND it automatically files it in a designated folder of my preference.

The bigger idea is to make these files fully integrated with any musician's portable recording devise. What is the date format for your cell phone?

Everybody else: What's the dating format on your preferred portable recording devise?

In reply to by Rockhoven

I'm not sure I understand the question. Most devices don't impose specific date formats, that's an invention of the programs that run on the devices and how they choose to present the date. Do you mean, if you choose to take advantage of the automatic naming scheme offered by some particular device, what does it default to? WAV0001 WAV0002 etc is common, or for MP3, MP30001, MP30002, or for digital cameras, IMG0001 IMG0002, etc. But no way could I recommend that for a computer program that is capable of using a more intelligent scheme like YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS or the like - something that both represent the time and date and also is completely sortable.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc - Is it the case for you that these devises use a 7 digit code? Or was that theoretical? I want actual usage examples. Mine is a 6 digit code, 200917, for today. Let's get some actual examples. The idea here is to have a powerful organizing tool. When compatible, the automated systems result in collated files when placed in one folder. I don't know whether it can be done or not. Let's look at a variety of codes.

Does anyone here have a portable devise that uses the exact code: YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS?

There's more to this. I only used the name "daily log" to get us started. It might have to be renamed as it's functions are expanded to include automated filing for titles also.

In reply to by jeetee

Jeetee - You were smart to note that point. The format you chose is the best if this is to be a self contained feature. I covered this point (about the format) thoroughly when introducing the project.

A reminder: My Tascam DR40 handles all entries for today like so: 200918_0000 where 0000 is a running serial number, no matter which day. It just runs through the months up to 9999. Granted, your system is vastly superior in that I can make 86400 entries each and every day!

The question now is: What devise is compatible with your chosen format? Is it compatible with your cell phone? Because with the configuration tool, all daily entries can be routed to the folder that contains your cell phone files. If the plug in is configured for your cell phone, the files will all be collated. So the user can make audio notes of melodies while notating them. They can sing the melody that they just notated or notate the melody that they just sang. They can do the same with piano or guitar chords or bass lines. Both types of files appear collated in one folder.

We can also automate the filing of titles. What we are doing is we are building a prototype to be used for a redesign of the New Score Wizard. We might call this project the New New Score Wizard, or the Really New Score Wizard.

In reply to by Rockhoven

A reason single-purpose devices tend to use index numbers is because they are in complete control of all files on the system, so they can get away with this. A computer is inherently different in that you can easily rename files, move them around, etc, and multiple programs can all be creating files. So everything about the process of creating files on a computer is different form on a single-purpose device. It wouldn't work at all to use index numbers in MuseScore for this purpose, because then you might realistically have two files with the same name - in fact, it would happen over and over. The file you create on the Tascam today would be 200918_0000, and so would the first file you create in MuseScore. Disaster waiting to happen. That's why timestamps are far superior if you need to synchronize things between multiple devices.

I note the same issue comes up all the time in digital photography as people use multiple cameras on a shoot. The cameras end up duplicating filenames all the time, so pretty much all professional image management programs include an automatic renaming facility so you aren't stuck with the names your camera chose but instead have ones that are guaranteed to be unique and sortable.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc - Do you have a suggestion, or was there a question in there somewhere? I appreciate your input, and I think that you can be super productive in this conversation when you have installed, enabled and experimented with this prototype that Jeetee has been smart enough to follow up on.

In reply to by Rockhoven

I would say I had some "observations", neither suggestions nor questions :-). Since I personally would not be a likely user of such a plugin, and although I own many recording devices, I don't use any of them for "logging" purposes, I don't think I actually would have much to contribute beyond random observations likes the one I made. I can just try to keep my eyes out for potential gotchas and maybe every once in a while propose ways of solving problems that are identified by others (the way I proposed how a plugin could solve the specific problem you mentioned having that resulted in this happening in the first place).

In reply to by Rockhoven

My observation wasn't about the plugin, but about filenaming systems in general. Not sure what error you mean, but I didn't spend those four hours proofreading, so no surprise I didn't catch whatever error you might be referring to. If you have some question to ask or correction to make about something I wrote, just bring it up directly.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

The aim of this tool is to collate .mscz files with .wav or .mp3 or even .doc files. How can there be a conflict between files names of different types? Make an mp3 file with the a title and a wav file with the same title and observe that they both coexist in the same folder without a problem.

In reply to by Rockhoven

A conflict would appear the moment you tried exporting audio. Anyhow, again, I'm speaking about the filenaming systems in general, and things to watch out for when trying to coorindate files between different applications. Some naming systems will work without fussing, others will require workarounds. If you don't mind the workarounds as a price for whatever benefits you see, fine, again, I'm just making observations: conflicts will arise in general if all systems use a filenaming system based only on date and index. Thus, it is in general a poor choice for systems designed to coexist with other systems. For self-contained systems, it can be fine, although still a poor choice in my mind because even if the manufacturer thought they were building a self-contained device, you never know when some future programmer will develop a plugin designed to interface with files from your device and thus create conflicts you didn't forsee. Unless you were me, in which case, you did foresee them :-)

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I don't understand your observation. Make a folder, route your .mscz files to that folder. Export that mscz from Musescore in .wav and in .mp3 or whatever other options we have. Now, make a .doc with that same title. Make a .pdf from the .doc with the same title. They are all going to collate and there can be no conflict because they are all different file types. I don't see how you can be making any "observations" when you are simply imagining results. This is not a thought experiment. You have to have hands-on experience with this project to understand it.

In reply to by Rockhoven

If you have a 200918_0000.WAV file from your recording device and a 200918_0000.MSCZ from MuseScore in that same folder, and now you export from MuseScore to WAV, the default exported filename will conflict. Yes, you'll get a dialog asking if you want to overwrite, but now that's extra work to rename, and someone someday will accidentally answer wrong and shoot themselves in the foot over this. This isn't imagining, it's just very logical thinking ahead about the very real problems that are quite likely to occur if one chooses this type of naming scheme and then tries to coexist with other tools.

In order to proceed, we need to know what the file format is for people's preferred portable recording devise. The current format for this tool is yyyymmdd-hhmmss. Does anyone have or know of a devise that uses this format? Because, if you have this format, you can then demonstrate for yourself the benefits of using it in tandem with this tool.

Can someone suggest what are the most popular cell phones and how they catalogue recordings of pictures and audio?

Marc - If you want to be helpful, please post the exact field format for your preferred recording devise, whatever that is, whether it be a digital camera or voice recorder. Anything. I just need to know what are the most popular devises and how they catalogue data. That's all. Mine is 200917_0001 which is the date in six digits followed by a four digit serial number.

In reply to by Rockhoven

Voice Recorder on my iPhone generates a filename based on the location followed by an index number - so for instance, "Ralston Rd 3" is one I generated right now, following "Ralston Rd 2" which I made several months ago (so not resetting each day_)

The video camera on the same iPhone uses IMG_0001 etc. - also not resetting each day.

The videocamera on my Chromebook uses VID_20200918_160310.mp4, which is VID_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.mp4

Screencastify uses "Untitled: Sep 17, 2020 4:43 PM"

My Pentax K200D uses IMGP0001 etc. I think it has optional to control whether the sequencing is maintains when you change SD cards.

My Zoom H2HD uses ZOOM0001 etc.

My previous digital recorder isn't operational and I don't even recall what the brand or model was, so no luck there.

Before that I used DAT, and before that cassette, neither of which used filenames :-)

Not really sure what this helps with, but there you go!

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks. This tells me that we are way out ahead in the game and most of these devises will have to catch up with us, because their automated filing systems are self contained and not designed to be compatible with other systems. That does not mean that every attempt to collate is going to result in a conflict. I think we have to identify what is THE most popular devise and make the format compatible with that, because this is a prototype and a prototype does no good if people can't test it.

So far we have a great tool for bypassing the New Score Wizard. We have one step score set up and automated filing by date, and the date format is adequate for keeping all files in chronological order.

Are there any questions?

There is no one true file naming scheme among recording devices (as the cheaper ones don't have a clock, so can't even know the date...) and there is no 1 true recording device in terms of popularity. Even with popular brands such as Tascam, the file naming schemes differ between their different models.

Also, I really couldn't care less about the file naming as most modern systems allow you to order files on creation/modification date, which should address your need of combining files from different devices as long as those devices use the same clock. How a file is named is entirely irrelevant at that point.

You also keep referring to this plugin as "a prototype", but from my point of view it has fulfilled every requirement you had set out for it and is a released and "finished" product.
It isn't a prototype because other tools use different naming schemes or because you've not yet used "sort by modification date" in your file browser.

Jeetee - You said that you made this because I asked for it. I think it's incomplete because it does not express what I specified. I specified a format of yymmdd_0000. That is what I asked for. Is the format yyyymmdd_hhmmss compatible with any known recording devise? The idea is to have a one step score with complete automated filing. The user should not have to sort by modification because that is what this tool will do.

Marc - The wav files exported from mscz are going to go directly into a DAW. The process that I am outlining here is for Hip Hop artists or "pop" artists. They can notate while recording the corresponding audio files. This is the primary notation as it fully expresses the intent of the composer with such subtleties such as rubato that cannot be accurately notated in a written score. The icing on the cake is the exported/imported wav from mscz directly into the DAW. At some point titles are assigned. That can occur at this stage of the process, when exporting/importing into the DAW, because the tracks need names, such as guitar, drumkit, etc.

The full score is produced in a DAW and not in the notation system. We are managing and arranging bits and pieces in the full score - the DAW. The transcribers can continue to use the Old New Score Wizard for preserving the important historical works. This revision of the Score Wizard is aimed at young people and their musics and their methods.

In reply to by Rockhoven

As I explained above, using HHMMSS is more compatible that trying to use an index number, because using an index number would guarantee collisions with files produced by other software. Your first Tascam file of the day and first MuseScore file of the day would have the same base filename, so exported audio from the MuseScore file would collide with the Tascam file. That is, again why timestamping is far superior - it virtually eliminates the possibility of overlap. And also as mentioned, you can sort your files by file created date rather than name to get them sorted regardless of filename. So it's non-issue for your own use case. Have you tried sorting your files by date? It really does work.

I think it would be reckless endangerment to modify the plugin in a way that guarantees problems for other users. If you don't mind taking the risk, you can certainly try to modify your own personal copy of the plugin, but it would be a mistake to release such a "trojan horse" plugin publicly.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc - Stop trying to scare people. We are not producing a needless or harmful tool. I explained this thoroughly. You only need back up and reread the post. The wav files that are exported from the mscz file goe directly into the DAW. It is not saved in any folder alongside any other file that it could conflict with. Also, at the stage of export into the DAW, the files are then named. These files are never numbered. So where is the source of this sposed conflict? The only files that coexist in the same folder are .mscz, wav or mp3 generated from an audio devise and .doc. I will say this again, for the 3rd or 4th time - All wav files generated by mscz are directed immediately to the DAW. You don't understand this because you don't compose this way. That doesn't mean that no one else composes the way I am describing.

If you have any more objections. please solve them before posting again. Then post the problem and the solution. We are going to have a completely automated filing system for the New Wizard. Whatever problem arise, we will correct along the way. We have no problem so far except that we need this tool to have a menu with a complete list of ten or twelve of the most popular file formats that are used on portable recording devises. One is yymmdd_0000. This will work fine for me and other Tascam owners. Others will be able to choose the file format of their preferred portable devises. So we will need to find out what those formats are. We have one - the one that Jeetee coded, and we will add others.

Jeetee - I use two different models of Tascam linear PCM recorders. They both use the same filing format of yymmdd_0000. I don't think that different Tascam models use different codes. If they do, then we will include them in the menu.

In reply to by Rockhoven

I'm not trying to "scare" anyone, I'm trying to explain why choosing a filenaming scheme that is guaranteed to conflict with other devices would be a bad idea. I don't expect anyone to get scared because I expect everyone reading to realizing that indeed, this would be bad, and therefore it won't be done.

Just because you personally promise never to export WAV files into the same folder as your Tascam files doesn't mean any other people who might hypothetically decide to try this plugin won't.

Also, I have no idea what you mean about exporting directly into a DAW - MuseScore has no such capability. When you go to File / Export, you have to choose an actual folder and an actual filename - there is no option to somehow send it directly to the DAW. I'm not even sure what that would look like. I guess maybe you really are talking about playback into the DAW, such as perhaps by MIDI out or via JACK. But I am taking about plain ordinary export. This goes to a file, there is no possibility to avoid that. And this is the case I am saying once would need to be concerned about. Whether you personally happen to do that or not is irrelevant; it's something tons of people do many times a day.

So again, if you personally don't plan to do that, fine, modify the plugin for your own unique use. but for a plugin to be offered to the public, first it should do no harm.

As far as I can tell, the problem is solved totally and completely - the current filenaming scheme is pretty much ideal.

One solution for file conflicts is to block wav from showing in the Export menu. If I already have wav files generated by an audio devise in this folder, then when I pull down the menu in the Export "wav" will be appear in grey type rather than black. The other options of ogg, mp3 and flac will show in black. But seriosly, I see no problem because mscz is going to generate wav files directly into a DAW and it's likely that at that stage of the process the tracks will be titled according to the instrument. They can then be exported back out to folders with these names for titles.

Another thing is that user could make backup files when using this, but that might not be necessary with a little imaginative design.

Any other solutions for this? Marc suggested appending the numbers for identical dates on identical file types. There certainly are workarounds for this problem of file conflicts. And we certainly are not designing something that is going to cause greater problems than the problem we are trying to solve - mainly that the New Score Wizard is perfectly logical for transcription work but equally illogical for composition work. This can be proven from the historical record. Beethoven numbered his symphonies and sonatas. The idea of beginning with a title is a little absurd, until a certain stage of the process. Yes, it can be done, and often working titles are chosen for songs, when we get to the point of assembling material. But in the composition process, we begin by collecting large volumes of raw ideas and these ideas are best initially organized numerically (or chronologically.)

With this system i am outlining, we are following the creative process from inceptions of ideas to the final product - a complete score appearing in the DAW. I am backing up a few steps in the process and also moving forward in the process so that we are getting a more complete view of that whole process. The composition process does not begin with a title and end with a completed written score. It begins a step backward and ends a step forward.

So we have already solved several problems that the old Wizard presented in that we do not need a title for every little bit that we want to jot down. We can now bypass the Wizard and get a grand staff in one step. We have also opened a door for the larger project of automated filing with possibilities for compatibility with preferred portable audio recording devises. I can't overstate the importance of this breakthrough. Developers should take note of this because we are moving on from transcription to composition, and the two worlds are different in many ways. Expect Musescore to come out looking and acting differently.

In reply to by Rockhoven

Again, though, if you think MuseScore has a magic "export directly to DAW" function, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It can playback in realtime, but export is always to a file. And of course, it's not just about WAV - many of the device you refer to also record MP3 and other formats. If the basename of the MsueScore file is the same as that created by a system program you want to integrate with, conflicts are a given.

Even if you don't plan to ever do export your scores to audio files, tons of people do. You are the one arguing that this plugin is something many people would benefit from, not just you. And therefore, it's important to take the possible needs of those many into consideration.

And once more, it is a complete misrepresentation of the difference in workflows to say that one involving a DAW is for "composers" and one involving creating and working notation directly is for "transcribers". It's wrong, and it's insulting - how dare you suggest that people who actually create new scores with titles and other attributes are not composing!

So, I don't see the need to engage in this discussion further. I've made my observations. If you think for your unique workflow you are willing to live with the inherent limitations and risks of a different naming system, you are of course free to modify the plugin to suit your own unique needs, or convince someone else to do it for you.

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