Musescore 4: Where can I enable "continuous view"?

• Aug 13, 2022 - 21:18

No more to be asked than what's in subject ;-)



Oops - after searching "up there" for too long, I just found it "down there". Sorry for asking before running around the screen.


In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I've been using Musescore since version 2. Version 3 is what I've used the most for writing out scores and parts. I love it. I just upgraded to version 4 and I noticed a few changes that made me frown...a lot. I'm not fond of change, expecially when it appears that the changes don't make sense. My wife says it's my OCD. I think one of the most frequently asked questions I'll have with this version is, "Why was it moved from here to there, when here worked just fine?" One of those "why" questions is moving Workspace, Concert Pitch, Page View and Zoom from the top to the bottom of the page. Especially when there's plenty of space at the top of the page. A small thing, to be sure, but irritating. After trying out a few pieces brought over from version 3, I think it's going to be ok. Haven't tried too much so far, but I think I'll feel the same way about version 4 as I did for versions 2 & 3. I don't expect any revisions to come out just to please me, so I'll adapt and get used to it. I always do. I just don't like to.

In reply to by koolgramps01

I too wonder why they have messed up the interface. Any change in a new version should be in response to a need, or to a new feature that demands such a change. Moving down the view button, or sending to the right the play panel and to the extreme right the undo/redo buttons, or removing the save button from the front panel don't seem to be related to any improvement. Exactly the same functionalities can be attained with the old position of all those controls. So it seems to be just the preference of the development team or some of its members. If it is a question of preferences, then why not allow for a customization facility to locate things where one prefers? Currently the customization is very limited, covering only the toolbar and the playback options (apart from the palettes). The left side panel containing palettes, etc., is way to wide for small screens and cannot be resized, as it was possible in previous versions.
To be honest, there is one change that is highly welcome: the scroll bar at the bottom, which appears when the cursor reaches the bottom, allowing to quickly navigate the score from end to end, very useful for large scores. This had been a highly requested feature which at the time had ben rejected as unnecessary, and now it is there... great!
This makes me confident that our wishes may be listened to and some time in the future the user interface will be fully customizable.

In reply to by fmiyara

Changes are never made for no reason. The overall rationale behind the new interface is very clear: to make it less cluttered and thus less overwhelming and confusing to new users. This is borne out by usability testing. There is also great attention to generally accepted design and accessibility standards. Just because it's always been a certain way - cobbled together over the years by people who knew coding but were not experienced in GUI design (that includes me) doesn't mean it's good.

That's not to say more customization wouldn't be nice to have in addition, of course, and that's on the radar.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

"Changes are never made for no reason. "
Well, who complained even once about the location of the undo/redo buttons on versions 1, 2 and 3, say, in the last 10 years? Absolutely no one.
Personally, I agree with the complaint (and I've seen others, on the French forum) about this location. One really wonders what these buttons are doing there, to the opposite of the notes entry function, notes selection and so on. Personally, it bothers me a lot. Well, not really, since I'm still happily using V3. When a major version came out, we were happy, because major new features were added to the existing ones (automatic placement, chords playback (3.5) , and many others, easy fingering, double/half duration etc. )
This V4 has gone in the opposite direction, removing certain functions, and piling on other small and large very irritating regressions. 😌
And as for sound banks, personally, I couldn't care less about them, as they're not the main purpose of a score-editing program in my opinion.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Theories are theories. They are not necessarily correct.

Which are the standards that say that the most frequently used functions such as the playback panel or undo/redo must be to the right? And that very seldom used ones, such the mixer and parts extractor (only used at the beginning and at the end of the workflow) must be on the center of the scene? Which standard says that saving, one of the most useful operations in any productivity application should be hidden in a menu?

Because if that standard does exist, very few applications comply with it. Starting by Microsoft applications. See for instance Office 365: save, undo/redo, are quite visible, right at the top and at the left of the screen. And the MS guys want to sell above all, so they would never do anything that would discourage customers. See…. Aren't those user interfaces cluttered? The clear conclusion is: cluttering not only isn't an impediment, but it is actually a desired feature, since once you learned where are the features you'll be using, you'll have the most important ones right there, at a one-click distance. And you cannot avoid learning. Clutter may not be visible, but it is still there, hidden inside the menus. Only that you will need at least two actions to get there, and this holds both for the learning curve and any future use.

Besides, all of us, the millions of people who regularly use MuseScore, once were "new users", and I don't think people who is able to use a sophisticated piece of software such as MuseScore are to be overwhelmed by the old interface, or ever feel that it is too cluttered. On the contrary, it was a very clear and discoverable interface. Indeed, I don't recall having read complains about where where such-and-such a button is.

Regarding your comment, an example. Is the QWERTY keyboard good? In theory, definitely not. But who cares for theory? If you attempted to change it (and it has been attempted) billions of people would react angrily. People is so used to it as the millions of users of MuseScore to the previous interface.

In reply to by fmiyara

Holy cow. This reminds me of when Sibelius overhauled their UI. Supposedly many people quit using it because they didn't like the changes. Of course people are perfectly within their rights use whatever tool they want. But button location complaints seem a little over the top. I get it. You get used to things a certain way. then it changes for no good reason you can think of. Sorry but, oh well. I switch between notation programs often. Most everything is in a different place between them.
I'm not interested in defending MU4. I'm just wondering why after more than a year, people who prefer MU3 don't just stick with it.
I found the comment that the sounds don't matter.....interesting. Sure, if all you do is transcription, maybe. Or you have perfect pitch and know, in your head, exactly how things will work together. And yes, the sounds are only to give you an idea of how the piece will sound. I which case, all you need is a piano sound. Or even the original GM sounds (argh). I write for playback. Yes I know, I should be using a DAW and several thousands of dollars of sounds. Yeah, that's not going to happen. When I open one of my pieces in different software, guess what. It sounds different. For example, I wrote a piece in Sibelius. Which has 35gigs of great sounds. It sounded OK at the time. When MU3 offered SND I put that piece into it. I had to rewrite things that didn't work well with the MU3 sounds. But it was fun to experiment. But it didn't sound as good as Sibelius. This piece has quite a loud almost bombastic climax. I had been experimenting with MU4 in beta. After Muse sounds came out I decided to try them out on the above mentioned piece. I loaded the mxl and made sure everything was on Muse sounds. No other adjustments. Then I hit play. Playback through the first part was better than MU3. But that isn't saying much. Then we hit the climax part. It was spectacular. Powerful with lots of punch that even Sibelius lacked. As a result I don't have MU3 on this new computer.
I learned long ago to not rely on the save button. I don't use it. Or a bunch of other things that are "missing". It's all in how you look at it. For me adding back the things the way they were in MU3 would be a regression.

Is MU4 perfect? Hardly. Many things in Muse sounds seriously need to be fixed. Is it better than MU3 or Sibelius? Not for me to say. I use whatever program does what I need at the moment.

In reply to by fmiyara

Making “it has to always keep looking the way it has always looked” despite all evidence from standards and actual usability testing pointing to the fact that it’s always been bad design is, well, bad design. Like it or not, when a design isn’t good to start with, changes are necessary to make it better. There is room for honest disagreement on the specifics of course, but it has to based in something more than “ just it’s always been this way, and I don’t like change”.

Sounds to me you haven’t performed usability studies of your own, nor do you appear to have extensive experience in user interface design. But if you have some actual informed data to bring to the table I’m sure it can be considered alongside the informed data from the user interface who have done the usability testing thus far, and further improvements may be possible.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

No, i didn't perform usability tests. But if many software developers, particularly some who cannot be blamed for not making usability tests or for not having extensive experience in user interface design, like Microsoft (so I did provide a specific example), place a save button quite visible and using an icon that is understood by every computer user, any standard saying you don't need it there since it clutters the interface is in contradiction with reality.

By the way, according to Wikipedia, MuseScore had 12.1 million downloads as of December 2022, while Microsoft Office has more than 700 million users. If the save button were cluttering the interface they surely would have removed it. I'm sorry to have to say this because I love MuseScore and love free software,

In reply to by fmiyara

As I said, it's possible for their to be honest disagreement about specifics, and indeed, some well-established apps that date back to the 1990's continue to use 1990's style interface elements. That doesn't mean all must, but it can certainly be a topic for reasoned discussion without accusing the professional designers (who have expertise in the field and performed usability studies and made valid choices in order to improve the user experience) of making changes with no need. Improving the new user experience is the need. As long as people fail to recognize this and accuse designers of making changes for no reason, discussions will be on the wrong foot.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

One more detail: I entered this particular forum because I wasn´t able to find where to enable continuous view. I have been using MuseScore for more than 10 years and yet I failed finding where it was! I'd never imagine it would be at the bottom, which in most programs is customarily reserved to status information.

In reply to by fmiyara

re:missing features
I'd chalk it to the seemingly rushed release date, but it's a good move considering ms3 users were starting to feel frustrated waiting. On the other hand, the beautiful horn that comes with the new musesounds definitely boost dev team's morale, which is crucial to all other good features yet to come. The improved UI's gonna attract more talented musicians and speed up dev. It will shape up to be the killer app that kicks even dorico's assthetics and become the dream notation app, free of charge. Everyone will use it. As long as he also has ssd.

In continuous view is it possible to change the color of the instrument name? The gray color blends into the background. It would be good, e.g. change to blue. Is it possible?


At the bottom rt of the screen you should see a page icon - it offers page view or continuous view. Choose continuous view and your need is met.
(Personally I feel it ought to be an option in the view menu! but Musescore 4 is generally good so I'm not prone to complain.)


Is it possible to disable the display of this indication of time signature, instrument, and measure number as you advance horizontally in the score?

Thx and happy new year to everyone!

Attachment Size
prt.png 64.74 KB

In reply to by Joao Vitor Oli…

"Is it possible to disable the display of this indication of time signature, instrument, and measure number as you advance horizontally in the score?"

In Continuous View (horizontal), there is a good reason for keeping all these elements visible. Without information such as clef, time signature, key signature, instrument and measure number, there would be no visual hint about how exactly to interpret what is seen on each of the staves or to know where you are in the score.

In reply to by Joao Vitor Oli…

Have you polled your viewers to see if they share your preferences here? Could well be that most don't find this information to be a hindrance at all.

But also, if you disable display of clef & time signature in the staff/part properties, they won't show in continuous view either. Or, if your concern is about the momentary disorientation when the page scrolls suddenly, as the cursor reaches the right-hand edge of the window be sure to try out the smooth panning option in Edit / Preferences / Advanced if you haven't already.

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