Musescore 2.01 First impressions "Brilliant"
Not sure this the place to make the comment but I have just downloaded Musescore 2.01 and the first impressions are brilliant!
I imported a file half-started in Musescore 1.3 and the difference in look and even sound is remarkable.
I feel I am driving a new car so I need to be careful. Remember to rename old files and find my way around the new version. But a lot of formatting time is saved and there are already some fantastic solutions to long standing difficulties!
Comments
You bet! As to finding your way around… some changes that may take a little bit of getting used to are listed at Changes in MuseScore 2 . The list is incomplete (I actually just added something myself), so feel free to edit it if you find something you think should be listed.
In reply to You bet! As to finding your by Isaac Weiss
Ok I'll try to add to the list. My current problematic change is the tempo changes - there used to be tempo such as lento and adagio with the btm given - now there is no such thing? and reference to Inspector? I have no idea what it all means?
When I transfer the file from 1.3, the previous tempo was shown as poco lento at btm 66
What In now get (in 2.01) is poco lento with a faded btm behind it?
In reply to Ok I'll try to add to the by collierr
"Faded" in that there is actual text in your score that is marked invisible, or in that the numebr in the Inspector is grayed out? Posting the actual score you are having problems with is helpful.
But in general, what has changed with respect to tempo is this:
In 1.3, the default tempo markings were ordinary text like "Allegro" etc with predefined definitions in terms of BPM. Modifying the markings to actually contain the tempo markings (eg, quarternote = 120) was some work, and changing the actual playback behavior was more & separate work.
In 2.0, the default tempo markings are of the form quarternote = 120, and they have exactly the right playback effect. If you'd rather it be 126, simply edit the text, and it updates both the text and the playback effect at once. If you'd prefer to see text like "Allegro" instead of "quarternote = 120", simply edit the text, but of course, it won't be possible for MsueScore to understand what that means exactly in terms of playback, so now you simply enter the desired figure into the Inspector, after disabling the "Follow Text" option.
In reply to "Faded" in that there is by Marc Sabatella
Thanks - I follow what you have said and will go through it again.
I believe 'poco lento' set at 66 bpm in 1.3 has produced in (2.01) 'poco lento' (in foreground) with the number in Inspector grayed out (in background). As you suggest.
If disabling "follow text" and entering a desired figure produces your chosen text (foreground) and a grayed out number behind - as part of (i.e. normal) in the new set up - then probably there is nothing more for me to do?
In reply to Thanks - I follow what you by collierr
Marc
I have now been through this. In 2.01 I deleted both the poco lento and the grayed out timing appearing behind it. Then re-entered. I used the un-tick 'follow text' route and now have poco lento at 66 bpm without timing numbers appearing in the score - just poco lento. Which I wanted.
Very pleased and thanks.
In reply to Thanks - I follow what you by collierr
FWIW, the invisible tempo marking in the score is not normal. Scores created in 1.3 with a single tempo marking will still have only a single tempo marking in 2.0 as well - it will just have the "follow text" option turned off. If you are seeing an invisible tempo marking in 2.0, it must have been present in the original score as well. If the score was created via MIDI import, that tempo marking may in fact have been *completely* invisible - not just greyed out.
If you are seeing a case where a single tempo marking in 1.3 turns into two for 2.0, that sounds like a bug, and you should post the score so we can take a look. But normally, tempo markings from 1.3 should import just fine - you'll still see a single tempo marking, with the playback set correctly (and "follow text" turned off, since that wasn't available in 1.3).
BTW, a convenient trick for entering tempo markings as text in 2.0: enter first as "quarternote = 66", hit Esc or otherwise exit edit mdoe, then double click and edit the text to say whatever you want. The 66 will already be set as the tempo, so you won't have to mess with the Inspector.
In reply to FWIW, the invisible tempo by Marc Sabatella
I have now corrected the file which had the gray numbering behind the poco lento using version 2.01 and it looks good. I transferred another file from 1.3 to 2.01 and there was no gray impressions in the background of the tempo text at the start of the piece - so maybe there was a bug in the first file.
Thanks for your tips on tempo!
In reply to I have now corrected the file by collierr
I have been converting all my choral scores (mixtures from 1.0 to 1.3) over to 2.0.1 and have seen this issue a few times. The next time I see it I will post my score. Some are the result of "hide empty staves" which in 1.x would hide the top-stave tempo marking and I would have added a second one as staff text. I don't know where the hidden ones come from.
In reply to I have been converting all my by schepers
I went through the scores again, and I suspect the cases where I am seeing multiple overlapping tempo markings, esp with a hidden one, is because _I_ created them and _I_ hid one. So far all my cases with multiple tempo marking are with hide empty staves. I also suspect that I created the multiple entries because the bug in 1.x with hide empty staves hiding the tempo marking would make me think I forgot to add one. Now we are seeing them all.
In reply to I went through the scores by schepers
Hah - good catch!
In reply to Hah - good catch! by Marc Sabatella
I don't think I hid anything in 1.3?
For tempo I used standard 'lento' in 1.3 which was too slow at 60bpm so increased it to 66bpm. And called it 'poco lento'. When I moved file to 2.01 it showed (grayed out) two numbers: 'crotchet equals 60' and 'crotchet equals 72' behind the 'poco lento'. By co-incidence - the average of 60 and 72 is 66?
File since corrected by me - but if it helps I will try to attach a file called an experimental version for the experts to see. This is tuneless by the way! Not a great musical invention!
In reply to I don't think I hid anything by collierr
Well, since this was created in 2.0, there's no way to say whether that marking existed in 1.3 as well. But if you ever see that behavior behavior in a 1.3 score, do post it before saving it in 2.0, so we can verify whether the marking was in fact present in 1.3.
Hidden tempo markings could occur in 1.3 in several ways - either you explicitly hiding them, or perhaps in scores resulting from MIDI or other types of import.
In reply to Well, since this was created by Marc Sabatella
This is an experimental file created in 1.3 with same poco lento before it was sent to 2.01
In reply to This is an experimental file by collierr
Sure enough I see 3 tempo markings in the XML. One is 1.0 (60BPM), another 1.2 (72BPM), another 1.1 (66BPM). I can't interpret enough of the XML to know why two are invisible except they appear to contain no text description at all except the "Poco Lento" which is set to 66BPM.
At least 2.0 is smart enough to show _everything_ now, esp those things which were fully invisible and caused invisible tempo changes. Now they are easily spotted and removed or corrected.
In reply to Sure enough I see 3 tempo by schepers
I think these invisible/textless tempo markings would be typical for MIDI import
In reply to Sure enough I see 3 tempo by schepers
Yes, I seem to recall that text-less tempo markings could happen in 1.3 as a result of MIDI import, possibly other things as well - maybe simply deleting the text? And there was a deliberate conscious decision to convert these into invisible elements for 2.0, so you would have the chance to delete them. Otherwise you could get into situations where a text-less tempo marking was messing with your playback and there was nothing obvious you could do about it.
In reply to Yes, I seem to recall that by Marc Sabatella
I have not used Midi so that's not the problem in my case.
In 1.3 I struggled with choosing a standard tempo such as adagio or andante and finding it was not quite right - so varied the actual bpm, up or down in number or altered the text to suit. Later on, after I had done other work and saved the file, I could not remember the bpm I had previously chosen. There was no way I could work that out retrospectively in 1.3.
In 2.0 it is more precise so basically I am happy with the new set up. I am happy to amend files transferred across from 1.3 for tempo and just move forward. Hope that makes sense?
I agree! Not only is this program brilliant and well thought out, it's down right addicting!! At this point, I have forgotten my wife's name.
- Lee
In reply to I agree! Not only is this by Lee Batchelor
I know what you mean!