Linked staves?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Linked staves?

Maurizio M. Gavioli
I understand the timing is not optimal, with ver. 2.0 RC under the way, but the pressure itself of this milestone pushed me to speculate about the real usability of the linked staff feature.

Note: I refer specifically to the linked staves within a single score, NOT to the linking between a 'master' score and its extracted parts, which is a different topic.

The linked staves feature is, since its inception, an endless source of troubles, its implementation forcibly grew from a simple mechanism to a complex (and fragile) system rather difficult to understand, with branches all over the code; nevertheless, it is still plagued by many bugs or inconsistencies, I'm afraid it will never work "as expected" and, for sure, it will be very hard to maintain in the future.

This is obvious when standard and tablature staves are linked. Ultimately, this arises from a basic misunderstanding: that standard notation and tab notation are two different codings for the same thing. This is not true: they are different notations, noting different things, and cannot be transcoded from one to the other; perhaps, they can be translated from one to another but, if done mechanically by an algorithm, the result will not be better than, say, a Google translation from Italian to English.

I know that there are other programmes implementing this kind of linking; I suspect this is possible because some of them (for instance all the guitar-specific applications) can make drastic simplifications on the spectrum of possible notations. This is not possible for a general-purpose programme like MuseScore.

So, I decided to throw the store and raise the question:

Rather than releasing MuseScore with a feature, which currently is buggy and it is likely to never work well in the future, is it not the case to withdraw this feature?

(Note: In theory, linking between staves of the same kind (standard with standard or tab with tab) is less problematic, but I doubt it would be of any real usefulness.)

As a bare minimum, this would involve removing the "Link Staff" button in the Instrument Wizard; practical problems, like some compatibility with existing 2.0 scores would not be very hard to solve (by ignoring the linking data, it would be possible to read such a score with all its staves: 'simply', they would no longer be linked).

Thanks,

Maurizio
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Linked staves?

Marc Sabatella
I understand what you're saying, but I think the facility works too well for sufficiently simple cases to abandon just because it can never be perfect.  There really aren't many outstanding bug reports I know of that are directly attributable to this, and most are pretty minor.  Only one that seems likely to be at all thorny - how to handle ottava.  I guess maybe capo / transposition is looking to be problematic, and that's what brought it up?

Anyhow, even though I am unlikely to use it, I would be sad to see it removed, as I know some people really value this.

Marc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Mscore-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Linked staves?

lasconic
Administrator
I tend to agree with Marc, but maybe we are missing the point. Can you explain more about the bugs you are talking about?

lasconic

2015-02-12 21:25 GMT+00:00 Marc Sabatella <[hidden email]>:
I understand what you're saying, but I think the facility works too well for sufficiently simple cases to abandon just because it can never be perfect.  There really aren't many outstanding bug reports I know of that are directly attributable to this, and most are pretty minor.  Only one that seems likely to be at all thorny - how to handle ottava.  I guess maybe capo / transposition is looking to be problematic, and that's what brought it up?

Anyhow, even though I am unlikely to use it, I would be sad to see it removed, as I know some people really value this.

Marc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Mscore-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Mscore-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer