Why doesn't MuseScore3 allow to turn a staff (already created) to a linked one?

• Oct 12, 2020 - 10:54
  1. Why doesn't MuseScore3 allow to turn a staff (already created) to a linked one by simply marking the Link checkbox from the Instruments dialog? I ask that because I have to distinct piano mono-staves (each containing notes, but written with distinct transposition rules) and want to link them together (without creating a new piano score and moving all the notes to it) so that I can easily switch any note from one staff to the other by using the CTRL+SHIFT+ARROW key combination.

  2. Why doesn't MuseScore allow to move notes with this CTRL+SHIFT+ARROW key combination between staves that aren't linked?

  3. Isn't it normal that, when applying a grouping bracket (to any pair of adjacent staves) the bracketed staves to automatically convert to linked staves or to at leas give me the option (as user) to choose if to turn those grouped staves into linked ones or not.

  4. I've tried to apply distinct transposition rules to the treble and bass (linked) lines of the same piano staff, BUT MuseScore doesn't allow it (and automatically overwrites the transposition rules of one linked staff to the other one): why is this? I consider this a bug, because, although they are linked, linked staff should support distinct transposition rules if the user chooses so.

Thank you in advance for answering my questions.
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.dragoii.com/gcp
www.dragoii.com/gci


Comments

  1. Because for that it had to remove the content of one of the linked staves and sync with the other, but no way to tell which to dele and which to keepp and sync.
    Just add a new linked staff and delete the one you don't want
  2. MuseScore does allow cross-staff notation, but only between adjacent staves of a single instrument. A linked stave here doesn't count nor work.
  3. No, why should it?
  4. That is because they are linked and as such 'doomend' to have the very same content

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Dear Mr. Schmitz,

  1. Why would you have to “remove the content of one of the linked staves”? What do you mean by “sync”? Do you refer to time signatures (TSs)? If the staves are written in distinct TSs then you should use a simple a dialog in which to prevent the user that linking two distinct staves with distinct TS may generate errors and give the user the option to choose what sequence of time signature to preserve (the ones from the 1st staff or from the 2nd one). I tell you: most users will surely want to link 2 adjacent staves from the same score (which most surely will have the same sequence of TSs). The implementation of a simple “Link” tool will also create a useful tool/workshop for any compose who wants to link (by grouping) two or more related staves (violins I and II for example, or violas and cellos) and easily move notes (with CTRL+SHIFT+up/down arrows) from one linked staff to another and test result individually.

  2. CTRL+SHIFT+ARROW key combination should also work NOT only between the staves of the same instrument, but also between any two linked instrumental staves (linked by grouping them): for example between violins I and II, between violas and cellos, between cellos and Double basses and any other two related instruments (which work together in an orchestra). I compose music for almost 25 years and trust/believe me: a flexible Link function would bring much versatility for MuseScore when used to compose large scores for various types of orchestras. Copy/cutting one note and pasting it to the other adjacent staff (to test the sounding in orchestra) is a nightmare without the simple CTRL+SHIFT+ARROW key combination between linked staves. I hope that you now get the view of a composer which is aimed to complete your view as a programmer. Besides that, I also do programming for more than 25 years (being both an amateur composer and an amateur programmer) and that may be an advantage when analyzing MuseScore, don’t you think? Additionally, my profession is that of a MD pediatrician specialist so that I’m quite skilled in diagnosis (applied not only in medicine, but also in music and programming).

  3. I’ve just explained in the previous number paragraph the advantages of a powerful/flexible Link (Un-link) function between any two related adjacent staves in an orchestral score.

  4. Two distinct linked staves (part of the same instrument) DON’T have the same content. For piano, each staff has a distinct content specifically addressed to right or left hand and each of these two contents may be applied distinct transposition rules (if the user wants that). Let me explain the advantages. If you want the right hand to play an octave higher/lower than written (so that to keep notes inside a staff as much as possible and preserve printing space) you just apply a transposition rule to the right hand (without affecting the left hand! and without altering the clef! and without using the 8va line which may be visually uncomfortable when used on very many measures, visually superpose to the chords line etc). The same for the left hand of the piano: if you want it to play an octave higher/lower than written (so that to keep notes inside a staff as much as possible and preserve printing space) you just apply a transposition rule to the left hand (without affecting the right hand! and without altering the clef! and without using the 8vb line which may be visually uncomfortable when used on very many measures, visually superpose to the Pedals etc)

Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com

In reply to by andrushkkutza

  1. Linked staves, by their very definition, have identical content, just possibly use a different way of showing that, like a normal staff and a tablature staff. Changing a note in one changes it in the other and vice versa.
  2. the 2 staves of a piano are not linked staves! they are 2 independent staves of one instrument.
  3. and 4. seems you do have a fundamental misunderstanding what a linked staff is, see above

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

The concept of “linked staves” now used in MuseScore is too narrow and rigid (and even ambiguous) that is why I advice you to extend or replace it with the following additional arguments.

  1. For example, when you add a “linked staff” to a treble staff (with piano sound) from the “Instruments dialog” of MuseScore, MuseScore adds an additional score written in bass clef an reproduces to that 2nd staff all that all that you write for the 1st staff (dedicated to the right hand). There’s really no purpose in this automatic behaviour and the “linked” term is ambiguous and creates confusion. I recommend you to use the term “mirror staff”, because this rigid functionality (generally useful when only writing with staves plus tablatures). Two columns will be then needed: the “Mirrored” column and the “Linked column” in the “Instruments dialog”: OR you may just need to rename “linked” to “mirrored” (because “linked” staves all appear under the same parent-instrument in the “Instruments” dialog).

  2. You should preserve the more general and flexible “linked” concept (and build a “Link”/”Un-link” tool) to any instrument with two or more staves that are conceptually linked (as explained next). The two staves of a piano score aren’t quite “independent”/separated as you say (they just have separate content), but they are actually “linked” (in the profound musical sense, which sense should be kept in MuseScore too) because they generally respect the same sequence of time signatures (TSs), the same tempo, the same key etc (and obviously work from the same purpose: to create a unitary piano musical piece, not to parallel sub-pieces).

  3. It was obvious for me from the 1st version of MuseScore (and I hope you admit it!) that MuseScore imitates Sibelius in a huge number of aspects (including imitating the key shortcuts, which was very useful because MuseScore progressively gained popularity among Sibelius users like me also because of this mimetics).

  4. One rapid solution to this problem is to allow the CTRL+SHIFT+up/down arrow key-combination to ALSO work between the staves of distinct instruments: this is a facile workaround, although the introduction of the two distinct concepts of “mirrored” staves and “linked” staves is mandatorily (in my opinion) to be implemented in a future more mature version of MuseScore (closer to the profound musical meanings of the two terms/concepts).

  5. Another related bug in MuseScore is when you add a “linked” staff to a double-staff piano score: the linked staff automatically imitates the 1st piano staff (the treble staff of the piano) and the user isn’t allowed to chose what staff to imitate. When I select the bass staff of a piano score and click the “Add Linked stave/staff” button (from the “Instruments dialog”) the newly added linked staff becomes “mirrored/linked” to the 1st staff (although I’ve wanted to created a linked/mirrored staff for the bass line, NOT for the treble line of the piano). Additionally, when you create a “linked/mirror staff” for the treble or for the bass line of a piano score (or both), you should color the little “checked” mark with distinct colours to clearly indicate which staff is “linked/mirrored” to which, so that to allow both piano staves to have their own distinct “mirrored/linked” staff, if the users wants it.

  6. You’ve not convinced me why not implementing distinct transposition rules for the left and right piano hands won’t be useful for a composer: I find them very useful and use them frequently, but by altering the clef (however, only treble clefs and bass clefs allow such 8va/8vb transposition; equivalent transpository variants for the alto and tenors clefs may also be useful).

  7. I also recommend another future update of MuseScore: to create a simple editor in which to let the user design/personalize his/her own clef and rules of usage/transposition. It will be a great flexibility (Sibelius 7 has this, but doesn’t have the facility to establish the transposition rules).

Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com

In reply to by andrushkkutza

@andrushkkutza: You say, "The concept of “linked staves” now used in MuseScore is too narrow and rigid (and even ambiguous) ".

They are definitely NOT ambiguous and are clearly defined in the handbook:

Screenshot_20201013-171533_Chrome.jpg

If the concept wasn't "narrow and rigid" then it could become vague, (and even ambiguous.)

You wrote:
I consider this a bug, because... linked staff should support distinct transposition rules if the user chooses so.

I'm afraid you are ascribing a facility to linked staves which was never intended. (Especially regarding 'transposition rules'.)
Please post a few lines from your score as an example of what you are trying to do. There may be a better way.

In reply to by Jm6stringer

Dear Mr. Jm6stringer,

For piano, each staff has a distinct content specifically addressed to right or left hand and each of these two contents may be applied distinct transposition rules (if the user wants that). Let me explain the advantages. If you want the right hand to play an octave higher/lower than written (so that to keep notes inside a staff as much as possible and preserve printing space) you just apply a transposition rule to the right hand (without affecting the left hand! and without altering the clef! and without using the 8va line which may be visually uncomfortable when used on very many measures, visually superpose to the chords line etc). The same for the left hand of the piano: if you want it to play an octave higher/lower than written (so that to keep notes inside a staff as much as possible and preserve printing space) you just apply a transposition rule to the left hand (without affecting the right hand! and without altering the clef! and without using the 8vb line which may be visually uncomfortable when used on very many measures, visually superpose to the Pedals etc)

Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com

In reply to by andrushkkutza

While content in a single staff of a piano score generally also indicates with which hand it is played, this is not a strict rule at all and cross-hand techniques are not uncommon.

If you have no indication to your player that you want that staff (not hand: staff) to be played in a different octave, then how will they know?
However if for some reason (visual clutter) you wish to not use standard notation to indicate such a difference in octave, then do the following:
1. Add a staff text so your player is aware of the change
2. Add the 8va marking according to standard notation, so MuseScore understands this as well
3. Turn the 8va marking invisible.

In reply to by jeetee

Dear Mr. “jeetee”

  1. Because “cross-hand techniques are not uncommon.” that is in fact an additional argument that the 2 staves of a piano scores should be treated as a unitary score and should be regarded as “linked” staves, but obviously NOT in the rigid sense of “mirrored” staves (as the MuseScore uses the term “linked” in the sense of “mirrored”).

  2. Simple: I usually put a small indication at the beginning of the score “play right/left hand one/two octaves higher or lower than written” and avoid the use of very long 8va lines which tire my eyes even when put to invisible mode (you’ve already guessed). I prefer to use 8va/8vb and 15ma/15mb G-clef instead of long 8 line markings. As long as the two piano hands work in two distinct keys (which is an traditional excess in my opinion [and very repulsive to most children which learn the piano!] as long as the 15mb G-clef can easily replace the F-clef [see my G-clef piano project http://dragoii.com/gcp]), I don’t see why MuseScore doesn’t allow distinct octave-based transpository rules (in the same clef!) for the two hands of a piano score, at least for those written in G-clef.

  3. From your last reply, it wasn’t quite clear to me to which past numbered arguments of mine you’ve brought your counter-arguments. I propose that you use the same numbering when answering my replies, so that to know to which argument of mine you exactly bring a counter-argument (that is the main purpose of why I number my arguments and/or counter-arguments).

Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com

In reply to by andrushkkutza

The 2 staves of a Piano are linked in the way you mean it: they belong to the same instrument, and that is why cross-staff notation works.

Again: 'linked staff' (in MuseScore) doesn't mean what you think it does or should do

  1. Just use 8va/8vb and 15ma/15mb G/F-clef if you don't like the ottava lines. Or use those but make the line invisible

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Dear Mr. Schmitz,

I may understand your resistance to change, HOWEVER you didn’t say any word on the bug report and on my new proposal (introduced in the earlier message). Don’t you think they worth being implemented in future versions of MuseScore (MS)?

  1. One rapid solution to this problem is to allow the CTRL+SHIFT+up/down arrow key-combination to ALSO work between the adjacent staves of distinct instruments: this is a very easy to implement update/workaround. What do you think?

  2. Another related BUG of MS is when you add a “linked” staff to a double-staff piano score: the linked staff automatically imitates the 1st piano staff (the treble staff of the piano) and the user ISN’T allowed to chose what staff to imitate. When I select the BASS STAFF of a piano score and click the “Add Linked stave” button (from the “Instruments dialog”) the newly added linked staff becomes “mirrored/cloned/linked” to the 1st staff (although I’ve wanted to created a linked/mirrored staff for the bass line, NOT for the treble line of the piano). Additionally, when you create a “linked/mirror staff” for the treble or for the bass line of a piano score (or both), you should color the little “checked” mark with distinct colours to clearly indicate which staff is “linked/mirrored” to which, so that to allow both piano staves to have their own distinct “mirrored/linked” staff, if the users wants it. I think it will be quite easy to correct this bug and to add the distinct colours to checkmarks: don’t you agree with me?

Thank you again for your time, energy and great patience!
Best regards and health possible!
Dr. Andrei-Lucian Dragoi
www.dragoii.com
www.rg.dragoii.com
www.academia.dragoii.com

In reply to by andrushkkutza

1) What is the actual use case of a melody cross-staff notation going between different instruments?

2) It's as much a bug as an unforeseen usage of a feature.
Linked staves were created for single-staff instruments to show the same notation in different notation systems. You might just as much call it a bug that you are allowed to add a linked staff to a multistave instrument as well.

I would log it as a suggestion to allow linked staves between more than a single staff. Don't ignore the requests to allow for a single tablature staff to be linked with a grand staff for guitar notation; which brings along a different can of worms regarding how to map voices between them.
On top of those there is a request for an instrument to use a different instrument as a source staff, either for the full score or for some measures.

In reply to by andrushkkutza

This whole topic seems to boil down to you insisting on calling staves from the same instrument "linked". Whilst that term already has a different meaning within MuseScore.

Alinked staff is a staff on which all notation is duplicated and linked (hence the name). They are used mostly between regular and tablature staves.

MuseScore also has the concept of "instruments" and an instrument can use one or more staves to display its notation. The term "linked" is nowhere to be found here.

1) Cross staff notation is available for staves belonging to the same instrument. So it's rather unclear now what you're missing here

2) Both the 8va/8mb and 15va/15mb clefs are available to you and of course are only applied to the stave you apply them to as long as it's a normal staff (so not linked as in the MuseScore definition of linked).
Note that using an octave-transposing clef is much more limited that allowing any custom transposition for a stave (which you seemed to request). So here again MuseScore is perfectly capable of giving you both the notation and the playback effect you're looking for; simply apply the relevant clef to the staff and you're set.

3) I replied to a post which has no numbering so there was none to replicate.

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