MuseScore
[MU4 Issue] The user should be able to unmute hidden instruments #15945
Replies: 61 comments 10 replies
-
|
I think this is a feature request that will take time to get right. I don't have a major problem with the idea and I can see how it may be desirable at times. But for now, let's bump to 4.x. It would be good to do this eventually. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This isn't a feature request, it's a regression - it has always worked in the past and lots of people rely on it as a way to get all sorts playback effects you can't otherwise (rhythm section parts notated with just slashes, various ornaments and other notations not supported for playback directly. I have verified this issue with one of my big band scores; no drum playback in MU$. The good news is, it seems you can still access the mute controls, if instead of hiding the instrument, you hide its staff (or staves). So it seems the functionality is still there (thankfully!) - it just for some reason isn't working as it should when hiding the full instrument instead of its staff/staves. It's still a regression in that it means any imported 3.x score using invisible playback staves won't play correctly without employing a hard-to-discover workaround. And even for new scores, it isn't necessarily obvious that you even can hide the staves individually or that this would work when hiding the instrument doesn't. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"This isn't a feature request, it's a regression" < THIS! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Marc, how do you hide instruments in MS3? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Never mind. I found it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@bkunda - would be good to perhaps consider a design here. Perhaps just the ability to toggle on/off the sound in the mixer? Perhaps something in the Instruments panel itself? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Do we really need a design for this? (Maybe I'm missing something). I think at this stage our goal should simply be to restore the functionality as it was in MS3.6, which would mean:
This behaviour presupposes an expectation that what you see on the score is not necessarily always linked to playback – i.e. that the two are separable, allowing users to create playback effects that are not directly connected to what is on the score. This might of course be a moot point, but I'd suggest that any discussion about this would be better reserved for an MS4.x release. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't think we should return to 3.6 behaviour. It is more weird for the sounds to persist when the instrument it hidden. It could just be that we allow users to unmute in the mixer. However, this might be a hacky solution, so I thought it deserved more thought then that. Perhaps we can use this solution for 4.0 but the logic would need to be spelled out:
It is also worth exporting a score from 3.6 with a hidden staff and importing it to Audio.com to see what happens currently. We may need to support this in 4.0. Not sure. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
OK I think I can be persuaded to this (I have storied-out some user cases in order to think this through, which I'd be happy to share elsewhere if it helps discussion). In this case, my suggestion would be that we adopt a fairly hard line about the interaction between showing/hiding instruments and their playback property, i.e. unmuted/muted. This is in order to keep the behaviour predictable. So, by default:
In either case, this playback property can be overridden in the mixer:
If the user changes the visibility state of the instrument in the instruments panel, playback for that instrument reverts to its default state. For example:
What do you think @Tantacrul? Perhaps we can also chat separately about importing to musescore.com. As for supporting this in MS4.0, I think we definitely need to address the issue of not being able to un-mute a hidden instrument, so there's only (he says, naïvely) one more step to establish beyond that, which is to ensure that the instrument becomes muted again if the user shows and hides it in the instruments panel. Not implementing this extra step in MS4.0 could cause some unpredictable behaviour, with playback occurring by default for hidden instruments in some cases but not others (my spider sense says this could be problematic). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'd definitely be interested in seeing the use cases that people have in mind for wanting invisible instruments to automatically be muted. Personally, for me, I don't think I have ever included an instrument that was both invisible and muted this, and I've created a heck of a lot of scores. For me, it's always invisible or muted, but never both at once. But maybe others work in very different ways and do commonly find a need for scores that are both invisible and muted. Could be a good time for a poll, and/or a statistical analysis of actual scores on musescore.com. And further discussion on Discord or wherever if we want to keep it out of here. As long as 3.x scores import correctly (invisible instruments play by default as they always have) and it's obvious and simple how to make an instrument invisible but still have control over whether or not you hear it, it doesn't matter too much to me what the specifics are. If I need to open the mixer and turn the mute button back off every time I hide an instrument, I can handle it. But I have to admit I'm scratching my head to understand why we'd want to take on all that extra complexity of worrying about all these different scenarios, and potentially surprising a lot of users, when I don't recall anyone ever complaining about the MU3 behavior. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This would be one example user case:
Agreed that the best way to really establish this would be through user research (ideally observing people hiding instruments and asking what they expect would happen to the playback). Given where we're at with the current release timeline though, I'd say that our next best opportunity will be during usability testing, which will confirm for us whether the design needs needs revising. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Makes sense. But either way, the regression where MU3 scores will incorrectly needs to be solved. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reported again in #10951. I had forgotten about this. Hiding instruments but still hearing them is pretty essential for jazz scores where people use this for rhythm section parts or improvised solo sections that are notated just with slashes. Also any number of places where people wish to write out a complex ornament playback etc. I still say, not once during the 10+ years of MuseScore 1, 2, or 3 can I recall anyone ever complaining that invisible instruments could be heard by default. To me it's expected behavior. The simple solution for 4.0 is to just remove the code disabling the mute button, and then it can always be revisited. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I went ahead and created a PR for this (#13282; ignore my local WIP version), simply restoring the MU3 behavior where hiding an instrument and muting it are independent. It's simple and it's what people are used to. I'm assuming that at this point, user research and a new design for an alternative scheme is not in the cards for 4.0, which is fine by me. I'm also fine with seeing this revisited in the future. But meanwhile, the regression needs to be for fixed for 4.0, as there will be tons of scores that suddenly don't play correctly. Plus it's an important capability for new scores with only a difficult-to-discover workaround otherwise. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think we have to stick with the current behaviour and add the ability to unmute instruments - as suggested by Dmitri. I do not think it is simple or intuitive to hear music you don't see by default. It would also require a large inconsistency with part scores (do we hear all other, invisible instruments when we play a part score by default?). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As someone who uses invisible playback staves almost every day (as do almost all other jazz arrangers), I guess I don’t see why you’d think of this as less intuitive than seeing staves you don’t hear. And yet no one seems to be suggest we automatically hide staves when muting them. Why is it intuitive in one direction but not the other? But as long as the regression is fixed - that existing scores that uses this technique continue to play correctly without workarounds - I’m sure people can adapt to needing a few more steps to accomplish this on new ones. Just seems like a weird thing to ask everyone to have to do. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think for most people, having to hit the solo button every single time they want to hear a part would be a major step backwards. The vast majority of time that people play a part, they want to hear the part only. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Wouldn't it make sense then (Or at least bring back the old "play part only"-checkbox?) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
An option to allow one to play the entire score definitely makes sense, no one has disagreed with that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sure , when parts are created via the menu, then all other parts should be initially hidden AND muted. But this can be done by two actions in the procedure and does not require the combination that hiding auto-mutes a part. If a user shows or hides a part explicitly through the UI this should not have any side effect on the playback. The desired functionality should lead the implementation and not the other way round. This might also require small modification of the code for the creation of the parts. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi all, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dear @bkunda |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Short answer: no. Better to implement the proper functionality than change to a different, equally incomplete functionality, which will just irritate a different cohort of users. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Short answer: no. Better to implement the proper functionality than change to a different, equally incomplete functionality, which will just irritate a different cohort of users. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"Better [...] than to change to a different, equally incomplete functionality" With all respect: Isn't that what has happened in MU4? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
MS4 is a completely different system with a different interface. It was not an intentional snub at MS3 users. It is tiring to take time to respond to comments only then to be punished and chastised for doing so. These problems will be solved. In this case, it happens to be part of a much bigger puzzle, so it'll take a bit longer. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Never mind. I'm gonna be quiet now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I get your point @Tantacrul . To be hontest: I'm just afraid that MuseScore - I learned to love version 3 in a few days - will change in a way that some of the advanced features will be lost... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I guarantee you that when we get our desired playback systems in, you'll find MS4 to be much more powerful. We've had to strip away some incompatible stuff in order to make way for the new. I'm currently working on this problem right now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As if you needed more people adding that this is a very much needed feature, here's another example of how a user (aka yours truly) expects this behaviour to work: We record youtube video's in playback mode [so you can follow the score] on the specific part and have other parts filling in empty measures. Having a mute button completely disabled just baffles an end-user. Auto-mute on parts, fine, disabled ... what!?
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Here is a design ideia: Almost all functionality of the current instruments tab could be concisely condensed in the mixer panel. Mixer becomes the only place related to instruments. Maybe multiple staves instruments should be treated as subgroups of tracks somehow? Order of tracks in the mixer reflects order of staves in the paper? [Hide] should be a toggle button independent from [Mute] and [Solo] PS: sorry for the big image
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't think this will happen. The Instruments panel is for notation; the Mixer is for sound and only that. Keep in mind that for both panels, it's their very first version, and both will gain a lot more functionality in the coming releases. I expect them to diverge. In particular: currently there is a very strong one-to-one relation between instruments and tracks in the Mixer; this relation will likely be loosened. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Totally agree. We have representation of the music in the musescore data (notes in voices, staves and parts, dynamics, articulatiions, ...). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I will add my opinion to such an extensive discussion on this issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You currently can hide an instrument and still hear it by hiding the individual staves of the instrument instead. But the functionality currently is in no way missing, just needs a different means of achieving currently. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
And I need the hidden staff to sound like a piano, and not the hidden staff to sound like a violin. That's what I can't do. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sure yoh can. Just add a piano instrument and hide its staves. If you need further assistance, please ask for Meanwhile, the new system seems to be already designed and at least partially implemented, so it seems this will become moot soon. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can we make a feature request to have a Preferences option for hiding instruments not mute them please? It's much faster to shift-click brass and percussion and click the 👁️ to get the rest of the orchestra viewable on one screen, than make each staff invisible one by one. (Would also be great if we could group/folder instruments for this purpose too one day) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Have you updated to 4.4? This is already implemented - see Edit / Preferences / Audio & MIDI / Toggle track mute by showing/hiding instruments in the Instruments panel. Regarding your use case, seems that's the sort of thing well suited to the existing Parts facility. I encourage you to ask for help on the Support forum at musescore.org - this site here isn't really used for much and few people will see your question here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Describe the bug
See #9357
If you hide an instrument using the 'Instruments' panel, the instrument should be muted in the mixer.
The user should be able to unmute it if they want
bandicam.2022-03-29.21-54-17-438.mp4
Expected result
You should give user ability to unmute hidden instruments in Mixer
(or implement something in Instruments panel - see #9357 (comment) )
Platform information
macOS, Windows, Linux
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions