MuseScore is an open source and free music notation software. For support, contribution, bug reports, visit MuseScore.org. Fork and make pull requests!
First of all, I want to say that I do not condemn the existing system. But I suggest improving it, making it more readable and understandable.
To begin with, I will briefly describe what I propose.
If the user changes to an instrument with a different transposition, I suggest that the key signature change should not be indicated immediately, but only on the next system (without specifying ♮ if it is enabled in the style settings) or on the same system if the instrument enters it, but only before the instrument enters;
Similar to the previous one, just with the clefs. For example, a user changes a flute to a piccolo. I suggest specifying the octave-transposed clef not immediately, but only before the instrument enters, or from the beginning of the next system (if the instrument has not entered the same system where the replacement is indicated). This applies not only to octave-transposed clefs. For example, a clarinet and a bass clarinet can alternate, where a treble clef is used in the clarinet, and a bass clef is used in the bass;
I propose to implement automatic indication of the name of the instrument that was replaced at the time of its entry. In this case, the name must be unabridged and indicated at the time of its entry (after replacement);
If the instrument change occurs on the first bar of the system, I suggest not to specify the abbreviation of this instrument (label in the fields) immediately before this system (so that it does not happen that the user first sees the name of this instrument, and then finds out that it needs to be changed).
Problem to be solved
In my opinion, specifying the change of the clef and the key signature simultaneously with the change of the instrument is not a significant need. The main thing is to change the instrument, and things like the key signature and the clef do not have to be specified immediately. Moreover, the key signature requires additional space. Yes, this can be specified either just before the instrument enters, or at the beginning of the next system, if the instrument does not enter soon. This is especially unnecessary if the score is recorded at concert pitch.
However, the user should be able to control it. It would be nice if there was a parameter in the style settings that allows you to control this.
The name of the replaced instrument at the time of its entry is its confirmation. This is especially useful if many tacet bars have passed since the instrument was replaced. The performer will be sure that the instrument that is to be used is correct. In the full score, such information is also useful, especially if the replaced instrument enters into the same system where the replacement instructions are indicated (since the label of the previous instrument is still indicated in the margins).
And the last thing. It happens that the instruction to change the instrument falls on the first bar of the system. And in this case, the following picture is obtained:
Please note that the label of the instrument in the margins changes immediately. At the same time, there is a certain ambiguity: we see an instruction to change the instrument, but to the left, the label of this instrument is already indicated in the margins, as if the instrument has already been replaced beforehand. It doesn't look quite logical. In addition, if the system starts with a new page, it will not be clear which previous instrument was instructed to change.
It would be much better if the name of the previous instrument remained in the fields, and the name of the replaced instrument was already in the fields of the next system.
Prior art
No response
Additional context
No response
Checklist
[X] This request follows the guidelines for reporting issues
[X] I have verified that this feature request has not been logged before, by searching the issue tracker for similar requests
Your idea
First of all, I want to say that I do not condemn the existing system. But I suggest improving it, making it more readable and understandable.
To begin with, I will briefly describe what I propose.
♮if it is enabled in the style settings) or on the same system if the instrument enters it, but only before the instrument enters;Problem to be solved
In my opinion, specifying the change of the clef and the key signature simultaneously with the change of the instrument is not a significant need. The main thing is to change the instrument, and things like the key signature and the clef do not have to be specified immediately. Moreover, the key signature requires additional space. Yes, this can be specified either just before the instrument enters, or at the beginning of the next system, if the instrument does not enter soon. This is especially unnecessary if the score is recorded at concert pitch. However, the user should be able to control it. It would be nice if there was a parameter in the style settings that allows you to control this.
The name of the replaced instrument at the time of its entry is its confirmation. This is especially useful if many tacet bars have passed since the instrument was replaced. The performer will be sure that the instrument that is to be used is correct. In the full score, such information is also useful, especially if the replaced instrument enters into the same system where the replacement instructions are indicated (since the label of the previous instrument is still indicated in the margins).
And the last thing. It happens that the instruction to change the instrument falls on the first bar of the system. And in this case, the following picture is obtained:
Please note that the label of the instrument in the margins changes immediately. At the same time, there is a certain ambiguity: we see an instruction to change the instrument, but to the left, the label of this instrument is already indicated in the margins, as if the instrument has already been replaced beforehand. It doesn't look quite logical. In addition, if the system starts with a new page, it will not be clear which previous instrument was instructed to change.
It would be much better if the name of the previous instrument remained in the fields, and the name of the replaced instrument was already in the fields of the next system.
Prior art
No response
Additional context
No response
Checklist