Perhaps off-topic but I use MuseScore 3 occasionally and it's great that there's a free alternative for amateurs like me who only use such software a few times a year. But it feels like it such a missed opportunity - it's 90% of the way to being a great piece of software but is hampered by what seems to be ideological attachment to a particular idea of what it means to "edit" a score.
It feels like using a word-processor with a stuck "Insert" key - you're stuck in "overwrite" mode. This works for some aspects of entering music but is incredibly frustrating for others. This point has been raised many times on the fora but they are often dismissed in thinly disguised passive aggressive way ("you just don't understand the model, come back when you do").
This approach forces you to nail down the rhythm and measures first otherwise you're in a world of pain later. While a natural flow for me (and seemingly many others given the number of queries on the subject) is to start with the melody without too much regard for measures and fix up the timing later.
The odd thing is that it's clear that internally/technically, there is nothing that would prevent them allowing you to use the software in a more natural way (that supports cut/copy/insert/paste etc.) because there are ways to actually "insert" but it's made incredibly obscure by the way the UI hides this ability. I got the impression that the people running the project just didn't want to make it "easy" for users to work with a score in this way because it's just not the "correct" way to work with a score.
Despite this, I'm grateful for the effort that has gone into the Musescore series. Also I'll probably check out Musescore 4. I like Tantacrul's youtube channel.
I'm stuck in a local maximum of lilypond in emacs and zathura (a PDF view) split vertically. I'm sure if I learned another tool I might be better, but it's "good enough" for my occasional use.
It's heading in the right direction... slowly. (4 has lots of quality of life improvements) It reminds me of blender a few years ago with lots of people stuck in the "you need to learn it" mentality that prevents basic improvements. I like to think that the recent progress is Tentacrul's influence, but it's probably more than that.
But yeah... I learnt not to ask for a better workflow on the forum. It's full of "it's a complex app, you don't understand it" people.
Absolutely on the money. I was pretty excited about it, and after putting some time into it I abandoned it. I didn't remember exactly why, but your post reflects my experience precisely. It's so mind-bogglingly cumbersome to do anything in it that I'd rather buy competent software instead, or work by hand.
When I asked about the incredibly crippled editing, I was attacked in the forums. I mean... the people were assholes.
I totally agree with this. It would be much easier to use if you could put the pitches in first and then work on the rhythm. I still use it but it is difficult to use because this issue.
It feels like using a word-processor with a stuck "Insert" key - you're stuck in "overwrite" mode. This works for some aspects of entering music but is incredibly frustrating for others. This point has been raised many times on the fora but they are often dismissed in thinly disguised passive aggressive way ("you just don't understand the model, come back when you do").
This approach forces you to nail down the rhythm and measures first otherwise you're in a world of pain later. While a natural flow for me (and seemingly many others given the number of queries on the subject) is to start with the melody without too much regard for measures and fix up the timing later.
The odd thing is that it's clear that internally/technically, there is nothing that would prevent them allowing you to use the software in a more natural way (that supports cut/copy/insert/paste etc.) because there are ways to actually "insert" but it's made incredibly obscure by the way the UI hides this ability. I got the impression that the people running the project just didn't want to make it "easy" for users to work with a score in this way because it's just not the "correct" way to work with a score.
Despite this, I'm grateful for the effort that has gone into the Musescore series. Also I'll probably check out Musescore 4. I like Tantacrul's youtube channel.