Video

you need a better microphone

I don't think musescore particularly needs to care so much about its reputation. Provided that the core open-source project remains pure intentioned of course. We must be vigilantly weary of embrace extend extinguish tactics that muse group might use however and we must defend that at all costs. That said there's little we can do if muse group decide to be predatory. The funding is coming from them and without it any well-intentioned forks will quickly fall behind. It sucks but it remains the reality of open source projects. Ultimately we place Our Faith in the Lord and Saviour our one and only Benevolent Dictator for Life. For better or for worse, despite architectural efforts in software licenses to minimise the risks, ultimately we are still placing our trust in one individual or organisation to do the right thing. So far I believe that muse group are doing the right thing. I find the lack of documentation for the interface between musescore and muse sounds to be a little insulting but I chalk that more up to a move fast and break things mentality rather than maliciously trying to cram proprietary code in an open source application.

This is such a weird complaint. Why do you expect everything to just be ready made for you? It's not intended to be a publishing house.

I think it could do with a full upvote/downvote system. They could also just seperate the brand.

Another reason? MuseScore 4 sucks, a mere shadow of 3.6.

One problem I've noticed is that people upload scores without completing them, and also without specifying the instrument(s) they're intended for. I recently checked out a score for a jazz standard. It turned out to be the second trumpet part of a big band arrangement for what I assume was a high school marching band...nothing at all useful to me. And I've also previewed scores that were not in the correct meter, or used dotted note values where they should have used tied notes to make the timing clearer. As you said, Musescore can be used correctly to notate some amazing professional scores, but you can also produce crap. It makes finding good scores more of a challenge, but then again, I often download a free piece of crap that I need to just get an overview of a piece to create my own arrangement, rather than paying the fee for something of better quality that I'm going to change anyway. My solution to the problem you highlighted would be simply for Musescore.com to alert potential users that the problem exists. And that as professional composers, arrangers, etc. the program is a solidly capable way to create their scores for all but the most wildly experimental music.

Hey a couple tips, since it looks like you're really trying to do the CZcams thing: You really need better audio. A better mic, a less echoey room, and a bit of compression. More relevant visuals will really help. Show pics of all the wrong vs right examples!

I have an inexpensive sibelius subscription because of cross grading. fom finale. Over the years, finale became almost impossible for me to be efficient with using. Especially with entering chord symbols. Sibelius, is better and has some cool functions like creating a video of my score for my fellow musicians to see and hear. But, when using musescore it makes me hate every other music program because MuseSore has logical functions that I don't have to think about and wonder what the trick is to making them work! Love it love it love it!

I think a section could be created for scores reviewed and approved for performance

Re: your anecdote, that is not the fault of Musescore. It behooves the downloader to vet the quality of the music they download, seeing as they know it's not necessarily written by a professional or experienced musician.

Great video, thank you very much. As a soon-to-be professional film and media composer, I'm very tempted by either Sibelius or Dorico. Actually, I don't know if using Dorico may be a problem since it is not an industry standard (yet). Just two more things not related, if I may (please don't take it bad, I'm just giving some suggestions in a friendly manner): 1. I understand you want to make your video as short as possible to remain attractive, however this is a pretty dense with lots of things to say and you speak very, very fast. There are a few times when I had to switch the subtitles on to understand what you say. Maybe you could try and speak a little slower. 2. The way your microphone captures your voice makes it pretty high-pitched. Coupled with your speaking fast, it makes the whole a bit tough to listen to. You should consider adding a compressor and maybe a tad of reverb to your audio input, which will make things nicer and more comfortable. There are some free softwares than can do it. Anyway, once again, this is great content, much appreciated. 🙂

It needs Chop Notation sounds :)

Wooo engraving!!!

Terrible voice over. Terrible.

The beaming thing bugs me as well. Another peeve is accidentals. Here is an example from a score given to me: key-Bbm, 16th note sequence-Ab F# Fn F# Fn Eb.

🎵Hello musical friends!🎵 🎶Are you not getting performances of you works? 🎶Do performers look at your parts and wince? 🎶Does your music sound completely different from what you thought it would sound? The way your parts look might be why! 🎵Have a wonderful, musical day!🎵

tantacrul is trying is best!!!! 😠😠😠

🎶Hello Musical Friends!🎶 🎼Are you a Sibelius user? 🎹Have you noticed any of these tricks that Sibelius uses to encourage you to spend more? 🎼Have you fallen for any of them? 🎹Let us know in the comments below! 🎵Have a wonderful, musical day!🎵

🎶 Hello musical friends! 🎶 🎵 Are you frustrated working in MuseScore? This video may give some reasons why! Once you learn more about MuseScore, the better you will get at the program! Have a wonderful, musical day!

Hello musical friends! I think MuseScore can do something really interesting in the future if they decide to create a music publishing company. Do you think they can create a publishing company? I think it is possible. Have a wonderful, musical day!

Can Dorico handle symphonic scores, simultaneous odd tuplets, Time signature changes, tablature, Freely spaced chord changes and nonstandard chord spellings?

I know this video post is older, but my comment is for those curious of NotePerformer who is not yet convinced. Follow the link here and discover the magic of NotePerformer. I cannot recall any VST sounding like a recording like this. The music in the linked video was produced by Dorico 5.1 Pro driving NotePerformer 4.5.0. (NO affiliation) The music performance can still be tweaked using Dorico's MIDI lanes, but the listener will definitely hear how NotePerformer is not this 'in-between', medium quality VST as some claims. NotePerformer has a lot of power, if one knows how to use its magic! 🙂 czcams.com/video/QfHQ5ZM4BaE/video.html

I have heard from music teachers: 30 years ago, every A-level student used Sibelius. Not a single A-level student for the last three years has used it. Add to that the cost of MuseScore (it’s free) and preferring the use of MuseScore for recreation, as I do, becomes a total no-brainer.

You forgot to mention that Musescore supports microtonal music, harp notations, exotic notations(such as different types of accidentals from different regions of the world), can load VST3s, and much more to discover.

The biggest issue I have with 4 over 3 is that when I'm writing for piano, which is usually what I write for, I can't make the left hand and right hand have different dynamics. I can visually, but audibly, they won't be independent. This was not an issue in Musescore 3.

Yo chill ass video. Thanks for making it only three minutes. Quick and easy. SO many mfs on this site make long ass tutorials for stuff that could be explained in a couple minutes like this

I've learned over the past ten years or so not to bet against open source software. Roughly 90% of my program bar in Windows is now open source (I regard REAPER as open source adjacent). So I've been running MS alongside Sib since version 3. I've tended to use it for smaller simpler projects. The one thing Martin and the crew have to do urgently imo is introduce "to picture" functionality. While I only work to picture occasionally I can see that most people nowadays do virtually nothing else. There's some benefit to it from an educational perspective as the visuals provide a stimulus - you just have to remember to write more than mood cliches and not run away with the idea that you're the next Williams or Zimmer...

It’s actually a bit worse than that. Even if you try to cancel the free trial through the trial period you can’t. The steps they provide to end the trial require clicking on “Subscriptions” in a drop down menu, except it isn’t there.

You missed a very important one. Your musical handwriting conveys a sense of your personality just as your handwriting does and this has an impact on the reader. This happens on lots of subtle levels but two to bear in mind are a) if your musical handwriting conveys a sense of confidence musicians reading it will feel more confident in the music itself and b) if your musical handwriting is clear it gives the impression that you have a lot of experience writing music.

I've used Sibelius for nearly 30 years but I recently started running this and 90% of the time it does everything I need it to, even on full orchestral pieces. I also don't need to jump through hoops to switch the Sib license over every time I get a new PC (which I'm sure is deliberate discouragement since Avid bought it). I've learned over recent years never to bet against open source software and this is very nearly there. The only drawbacks are no "to picture" functionality and no compatibility with NotePerformer (still the best playback engine). I'd be extremely surprised if at least the first of these isn't top of the developers' list - I only occasionally score to picture but nowadays it's all that most people do, even only as hobbyists. And a hobby is the first step to a profession. But perhaps they're holding off on that until they can be totally sure of playback timings. As to "industry standard" there will always be issues of course - I've encountered all four scoring programs in my professional dealings but for now the situation remains "big two plus another two". But more and more professionals are using things like this and REAPER (not open source but open source adjacent), or at least they have them installed and are capable of working with them. I think newer open source programs have what you might call "last mover advantage". The established big boys have been built over many years in a "bolt on" fashion and there's no incentive to completely rewrite the code. In addition, a lot of their research is already done for them - users' needs and preferences, compatibility and so forth. Open source software also leverages standard open formats over proprietary ones. And in my experience modern Music XML does have the capacity to encode everything that's needed.

I'm still working on MuseScore 3.6 for most of the things. MuseScore 4 is very slow on my system, at least when I apply modifications to the score I'm working on. So I'm using MuseScore 4 only for the things it's very good at : MuseSounds and automatic layout.

Music snobbery is truly alive and well it seems. Very sad to see.

"Sibelius is known for its intuitive and user-friendly interface" LOL what a joke. Is this video AI or something? Sibelius sucks and is notoriously poorly laid out. Those screenshots are of musescore 3 which is a wildly different application than musescore 4. and at 2:56 and 4:41 why are we showing a picture of musescore 4 when talking about sibelius? did you do any research at all or just put some vague prompt into chat gpt?

I'm running MuseScore4 on a 15 year old PC just fine. (It was a midrange gaming PC at the time I bought it). MuseSounds on the other hand stutters like crazy. I need to export the audio if I want to listen to playback. Still a miracle that it even works on my ancient hardware, though.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Musescore score sharing website. It's absolutely janky, and the jank feels strategic. However, based on my understanding, the Musescore Studio team and the Musescore score sharing service team are two different teams entirely. I don't mean like two teams under one boss, I mean each are their own thing--that's my interpretation that is.

I think you have to appreciate that the core purpose of this kind of software has always been professional engraving and many musicians struggle because they may be used to reading professionally produced scores but not writing them. When having to deal directly with the pictorial layout system they find themselves confronted with a raft of considerations they've previously taken for granted. So my controversial tip to aid learning any notation software is to put a bit of time into practicing scoring by hand. Most of us can and do actually still work much faster this way, but then we copy the results over for further work. Or not if it isn't necessary. Sketch on paper then move onto the canvas.

Hi... I'm a drummer and just want to give you, other musicians and CZcams Video makers some friendly advice when making CZcams videos with Audio Standards for different platforms. Your video audio level is way below standard and playback on my WIN8.1 PC is very low and would be very low on MACs, Tablets, Mobile phones etc. CZcams, Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music etc etc... all have their Audio Standard LUFs to be applied to music recording playbacks and video audio levels (motion pictures etc). Please Google "what does lufs mean in audio or what are LUFs? ..... and the answer: LUFS stands for Loudness Units relative to Full Scale or Loudness Units Full Scale (i.e., the maximum level a system can handle.) It's a standardized measurement of audio loudness that factors human perception and electrical signal intensity together. How did I find out what your LUF level was in your video? By Right clicking on your video and selecting "Stats for Nerds"... to the right of "Volume / Normalized" ... (content loudness - 24.8dB)... your video is -22.8dB below CZcams Audio Standards making it difficult to hear. The best Audio level to try and obtain would be -1dB to -2dB (True Peak Max). The CZcams Audio Standard "Loudness Target" is -14 LUFS in which gets you close to the True Peak max. If your CZcams video is above standard (e.g +3.5dB)... The CZcams video algorithms will lower it automatically... however if the uploaded CZcams video audio is very low similar to your YT video... the YT algorithm just leaves it as it is... a very low volume level that you and your YT viewers do not want. How do I do this?.. setting the right audio levels?... The best software I found is... "Youlean Loudness Meter"... FREE and PRO version$ Works in almost any DAW: FL Studio, Logic Pro X, Final Cut Pro X, Ableton Live, Reaper, Cubase, Pro Tools… I use it in Ableton 10 as a plugin... Ok... but what about Video editing software? I use Adobe Premier Pro and these LUFS can be set as default audio levels when video editing. The best CZcams tutorial i found for LUF settings in Premier: How to set your Audio Levels for CZcams | Premiere Pro CC Loudness Radar The best CZcams tutorials i found for LUF settings in "Youlean Loudness Meter": I Use This Plugin On Every Mix and Master - Youlean Loudness Meter 2 Pro (In the Mix - YTchannel has over 1M subscribers) or CZcams Loudness Mastering Guide for 2024 Hope that helps! :)... also a suggestion/request for a video would be "What is the best Drum Notation software" that displays the drum score notes with a moving cursor or bar that follows the music when played and how to apply it to a video drum lesson (for e.g. a person playing drums and a note score overlay with a moving cursor following the beat)... I know Sibelius does, but I ain't paying for it. I use Guitar Pro 8 and NCH Crescendo Music Notation Software.

I've used Sibelius (full version) for nearly 30 years, because it was first at the only game in town and later the best. The situation has been changing though. Sib has always been challenging to learn and use (it's never quite shaken off its origins as a pure engraving tool). It's also become clear that since AVID bought it, development has all but ceased - it's merely supported while they focus on Finale. And the registration process has become deliberately cumbersome, which is a serious consideration when upgrading computers. Many of the people I work with have recently been advocating Dorico. However, since MuseScore was updated to version 4 it's in the running. It does still have drawbacks - occasional stability issues, no "to picture" facility and no compatibility with NotePerformer. To all of these, I'd append the word "yet" and add that there were times when the others had these issues as well. Personally, I've learned never to bet against open source software. There is of course the issue of collaborative use - so if that's a concern it will make your choice for you. However, it's also worth asking yourself whether the proprietary bells and whistles are actually necessary for what you do. If software is the flesh of open source then a universal format is its lifeblood and all of these can import and export as MusicXML, granted without fully standardised results. And I don't think I'm paranoid in thinking that some of them are deliberately not very good at it for commercial reasons... If anyone wants my advice it would be to focus on your current requirements since means of use can always be learned. If you're a beginner or intermediate musician I'd recommend MuseScore on cost grounds because it will grow as you do. If you require professional complex large scoring facilities right now I'd go for one of the others - however, Sib is still the most widely used, so if you're going to need to work with others on editing and preparing parts it's still the one that everyone knows even if they prefer others. And to round it all out, I'm currently running Sib and MuseScore, using the latter when it's all I need. For instance, lead sheets and shorter scores for smaller ensembles, although it's also alright for full orchestra, you just have to work in shorter chunks for now. Which I'd argue isn't a bad thing in terms of working focus anyway.

technologically-abled people (as in, someone who knows what reddit is) typing in their credit card information for a free trial and then forgetting to cancel it are always funny

The best one is Musescore for me personally because it's available to everyone. If you want to hear the full potential of the Musescore engine, then I encourage you to check out the music on my channel! 🔷

Quick tip for anyone wanting to get a piece from musescore: it only takes at most a couple hours to simply copy it into the program manually note-for-note, even for large ensembles

hopefully it does get a revamp. Their obscurity in their prices really annoys me xD. Also, maybe it's besides the point, but I'd like to point out that when the website asks you for your instrument of choice, the electric bass option never shows up! I always end up choosing the 'another instrument' option :v. They should check that, as well.

Lilypond is goated, but one must know not to shoehorn for something it was never intended. For prototyping musescore has playback sounds, lilypond is just a notation tool. Imho org mode emacs + lilypond codesources is an unbeatable combo to mix text and music snippets in a good visual way

I don't understand why screenshots of older versions of Muse Score were used, as opposed to only screenshots of MuseScore 4.

No humans did that themselves already, the bar is low.

They said largely the same kinds of things over John Cages works, as he was pioneering tape manipulation techniques that ultimately led to our modern implementation of looping and sampling.

I don’t think so, I’m afraid. You’re never going to stop those who would choose to be formulaic by putting in effort for yourself. And frankly you shouldn’t even care about what others are doing. Neither should you hold yourself to some arbitrary standards. Expressing yourself is not something that is limited solely to manual composers. It never has been, but now more so with digital tools it’s been possible to generate beautiful music using set parameters to constrain the output within listenable ranges for more than 3 decades now. Nothing has changed but the method, the flexibility and the variety of results have been upgraded with more advanced parameters.

Hello Musical Friends! is AI ruining music? How so? Let us know in the comments below! Have a wonderful, musical day!

Most objections seem to relate to playback quality. I thought composers used a notation software so that their music could be actually played by musicians, but I was obviously mistaken ;-).