Musescore 3.5.0.13199

[OCTO]

Is it possible to share some examples of the current work?
Interestingly, MuseScore develops so quick, I wonder if it will take over Dorico!

[oktophonie]

Here's a page showing 3.6 in action. This is pretty much "out of the box" as far as settings go, so there's plenty wrong here, and obviously one could spend ages tweaking things to get them to look correct; but those are big problems to solve in code, in future versions. (Slurs are an obvious target, and the horizontal spacing overall.)

We have big plans and no lack of ambition, so we're aiming at a level at least as high as Dorico is; quite a lot of work needed to get there, though

[odod]

And here's my font .. it is not Partita, i made it long time a go based on Barenreiter edition which obvious that they're using Finale or SCORE
sorry for some missing accidentals and marking .. just for comparison sake
Sibelius

Klavierstucke.png (1.36 MiB) Viewed 8236 times

Musescore

Drei_Klavierstuecke_Op._11 - Full Score-1.png (647.34 KiB) Viewed 8157 times

[oktophonie]

Very nice, and pretty SCORE-faithful!

Bärenreiter no longer use SCORE for new publications but it looks like for most of their scores now they use a font (presumably Partita) to give the impression that they still are. Not often especially well engraved, though a bigger problem is their editorial standards these days. (But that's another story, grumble grumble.)

[odod]

Very nice, and pretty SCORE-faithful!

Bärenreiter no longer use SCORE for new publications but it looks like for most of their scores now they use a font (presumably Partita) to give the impression that they still are. Not often especially well engraved, though a bigger problem is their editorial standards these days. (But that's another story, grumble grumble.)

anyway i teach my secondary students with Musescore, they really love it!

[OCTO]

Here's a page showing 3.6 in action. This is pretty much "out of the box" as far as settings go, so there's plenty wrong here, and obviously one could spend ages tweaking things to get them to look correct; but those are big problems to solve in code, in future versions. (Slurs are an obvious target, and the horizontal spacing overall.)

We have big plans and no lack of ambition, so we're aiming at a level at least as high as Dorico is; quite a lot of work needed to get there, though

If I may comment in general. In the case you agree with me or believe that my comment is not applicable, I apologise in advance.

The most common misunderstanding is that the bigger symbol = the faster perception. This happened with Engraver font and with so called Maestro Wide. These fonts are actually very hard to use (at 24 p), since they occupy very large horizontal spacing. The wider horizontal spacing = more space needed = more wide music is = more difficult to read. It is like having words or letters to far away. Engraver occupy also to much vertical space ( , , ; and dynamics). But the clefs in Engraver are extremely balanced and well designed in my opinon, if not the most beautiful.
Something similar I find in Feta (particularly older version): the natural symbol is not taking so much vertical and horizontal space but its balance is taking to much visual information that it appears very unbalanced in comparison to noteheads and other symbols. Another problem with Feta, imho, is a kind of visual gimmicks that make font to look somehow 'amateurisch' (such are for instance).

Well, how to construct a good font? I believe everything is in a proper balance: B/W balance of each symbol, and balance between all symbols together. I stress the word Black/White balance, it means that none of symbols will stand out to much, none will occupy to much information, none will disappear = only one dimension, not several; every symbol needs to feel as stapled or punched on printed score.

Several years ago, when I was teaching music theory and ear training, I had a good opportunity to test various fonts in order to use for my material the "best" one. Well, what is the best font?
Simply, I printed the same music material in different fonts, and gave it to students. First I did't tell them there are different fonts, but toward the end of the lesson I asked them to look carefully and to give their "score": what is easier to read? That font I used later in my publications.
But to clarify this: a font for ear training is not the same as font for orchestral music read from distance, and is not the same as "on screen" font for mobile applications.

The result is that I used SCORE-like fonts for all my publications in the first place, and Maestro in the second.

[oktophonie]

Totally agreed. I often felt SCORE worked better in orchestral music (i.e. at a small size) than for piano music, though actually this is as much as anything to do with the line width setting in SCORE, which is often carelessly handled - I've seen lots of orchestral scores which are too heavy and piano or chamber music that's too light. Because the symbols are all drawn as vectors rather than being fixed font symbols, this same setting also affects the width of all the strokes - not just stave lines and such - so it really makes a big difference.

[OCTO]

just for comparison sake
Sibelius
....
Musescore
....

I don't know why, but MuseScore looks much better. Spacing and design look more natural to me.

[benwiggy]

Interestingly, the Opus font for Sibelius uses individual letters for dynamics, and the kerning and design are such that they fit together perfectly for pppp and fffff.
I actually don't like a ligature between m and p. It looks ugly in a lot of fonts, and gets in the way of the eye movement across the two letters.

Maestro is 'good in parts, my lord'. But there are a few bits here and there that I really find hideous. It's a shame they seem to have abandoned their SMuFL implementation.

[oktophonie]

Yes, I never liked the mp ligature either and was a bit surprised to see it in Bravura. (Of course, mp is a bit of a nonsense dynamic anyway, as Berio used to say, but that's another matter)