How to change pizz to arco

• Nov 12, 2016 - 00:41

So my friend gave a a file but i want to change a violin part pizz to arco how do i do that?


You can change the playback of violin pizzicato to arco by adding a stave text (default shortcut Ctrl+T after selecting a note of the stave). You can add anything in that textbox, but make sure it has data. Right click the text and select the option 'Stave text properties'. Under the 'Change Channel' tab, choose any of the voices that are to be changed. Click on the pull-down menu next to the boxes and select 'normal'.


In reply to by John Morton

5 years later this may not be relevant at all.

Just apply the arco or pizz texts from the palette to a violin staff and it will sound acro resp. pizzicato.
If not, change the instrument to violin (even if if is violon already, but stems from an older score)

See also the below link to the handbook

In reply to by John Morton

"Five years later" meaning, you are replying to a five year old thread that was discussing a totally different version of MuseScore.

In current versions, as per the Handbook, you don't normally need to know anything about channels, just add the pizz or arco text from the palette and everything works automatically.

In reply to by John Morton

It won't necessarily work if the score itself is also years old, as the channel names have changed. Or if it is not actually a viol (or other string) instrument, but some other one with the playback sound only changed to violin. Either way, the fix would be to right-click the staff, Staff/Part Properties, and Change Instrument, selecting the proper instrument this time.

And as always, if you continue to have problems., attaching your score allows us to assist you much more quickly and accurately.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thank you as always for your time. It's a brand new score produced in the current version of MuseScore using the native string sounds. If I sound impatient it is because you and I had this same conversation several years ago and here I am, again, unable to change from arco to pizz and back. My MuseScore files are taken, as Midi files, into Logic Pro, which is why the problem has just cropped up again, so the problem is solved in Logic. I can't let go of the score, unfortunately. (I can't change the instrument stack order with the up arrow, either, now but that's another thread and I understand why this has changed.) Don't worry about this. It's a detail for me.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I have solved the problem. When changing back from pizz. to arco, for example, it is necessary to click on the voice to reaffirm the voice selection even if it hasn't changed. The menu was already showing 'voice 1', which is what I needed, so I left it alone. One would expect the menu to be still showing 'pizz.' until the change back to arco is specified, but it doesn't. The bass part in my score is voice 1 all the way through. There is still the mystery of why, when I tried this morning, I couldn't get the first articulation change to work. Then I came back to it, did exactly the same thing, and it worked.

In reply to by bobjp

If you do as you both say it will (usually) work with the first articulation change but when you try to change back, in my case from pizz to arco, it will not work unless you reaffirm the voice selection, which hasn't changed in my score. Also, the menu at the point of the return to arco would be expected to still be showing 'pizz' since it is the current selection. The development team need to read the instructions through the eyes of someone who is new to the subject and ask themselves if clarification is necessary, not argue with me. I've been using notation software since 1995 (Encore, Finale) and bought my first computer in 1988 and yet this simple task took me around two hours.

In reply to by John Morton

sample score and step-by-step procedure please

My sample score is above, procedure:
MuseScore 3.6.2 on Windows 10, using the HQ soundfont
New score, add bass, 3 measures, fill measures with notes, all sound arco.
Apply pizz (from the text palatte) to 1st note in 2nd measure and arco to 1st noted in 3rd measure -> playback switches to pizz and back to arco at the specified notes

In reply to by bobjp

The staff text menu.

The instructions in the manual regarding reverting back to the original articulation, in my case, from 'pizz' back to 'arco', do not make it clear that, despite the fact that I haven't changed voices, and I haven't used a voice change anywhere in the instrument part, anyway, I still have to reaffirm the voice selection. I also find it puzzling that the staff text menu doesn't show 'pizz' when I right-click on the text to change it back to arco, since pizz is still the prevailing articulation at that point. Now, I like to think I am not a fool but it took me a long time to sort this problem out therefore I claim that the wording needs clarification. i.e. 'Click once more on the required voice to select the articulation shown....' or words to that effect. I hope everyone understands, this time because I really am out of here now.

Thanks to everyone.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Yes, re-wording would have saved me a lot of time but we are only tampering with the symptoms. The program should still show voice 1 (or whatever) selected in blue and, in the case of my score, 'pizz', in the menu when I right-click on the text, at the point I wish to change the articulation back to 'arco', because these were the last selections. That way, anyone will understand. If I click on the first note of the section I wish to change I still hear pizz, until I change it, so the program has a record of the prevailing situation. I also wonder why voice selection should enter into a situation where the particular instrument hasn't used voices, and usually never would, but this might be unfair criticism, perhaps.

In reply to by John Morton

But you aren't changing instruments, only the articulation. That is not done via staff text. Ever. Select the note where you want the pizz to start. Select pizz from the text palette. Later select the note you want to start the arco. Select arco from the text palette.

In reply to by John Morton

Again, you don't normally need to look at the dialog, ever. Like, literally it is not needed at all except in the most unusual of cases. If you have one of those usunual special cases where it is needed, please attach your score so we can understand and assist better.

But again, it's not about "reaffirming" anything. When that dialog is opened, the is no voice selection to affirm or reaffirm or deny or other recognize. It is asking you a simple question; what voice do you want to apply this setting. It has nothing to do with whether or not at some point in the past you happened to have selected some voice or not. It's about what you want to do right now. And again, it's only needed in the very rare special situations where you actually want to do something unusual like have a single text apply differently to different voices. That should virtually never happen with arco or pizz.

In reply to by John Morton

Don't think of it as being about whether you've "changed" voices or whether you have "selected" a voice or whether you are "affirming" or "reaffirming" anything. The staff text properties does one thing here: it allows you to specify which voices the sound change will apply to. If you want it to be voice 1, great, select voice 1. If you want it to be voice 2, great, select voice 2. If you want it to be all voices, great, select all voices.

It would be great indeed if somehow MuseScore could guess your intent, but unfortunately since this dialog is used for multiple different types of text, it's not possible in general to know. No doubt it would be possible to design a dialog that worked different and didn't require this selection, and no doubt it would be possible to improve the documentation. We always welcome specific suggestions on these counts!

Luckily, as mentioned, dealing with this dialog also completely unnecessary in most cases. Unless you are doing something unusual, you never need to open this dialog. Simply add the text from the palette and everything works perfectly right out of the box. I can't remember the last time I ever needed to resort to this dialog.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

This is a disappointing response. I am a person of, shall we say, 'average' intelligence, with 33 years of experience using computers and programs and I've been using MuseScore for many years. I found the process presently discussed (which I usually effect in Logic) difficult and, in describing my problems, I hoped you might consider changes in the wording or program function that would help others. Clearly, this doesn't worry you.

I am not asking the program to 'guess' anything. When assigning text or changing notated accents (etc.) we just click the note and go from there.

You DON'T just add text and expect the change to work, which is why I started this exchange in the first place. You have to enter the dialog menu and reaffirm Voice 1 (or whatever) or it doesn't work. This is the whole point of my post. 'Finale' works as you suggest (but, with ease of interaction, MuseScore beats Finale with ease).

In reply to by John Morton

You do just add the arco and/or pizz text from the text palette and they do work immediatelly.
If you are manually adding some arbitrary staff texts, you indeed do need to jump though some extra hoops, in this case right-click, staff text properties, select the voices and the channel to use, just like described in the handbook. No rocket science...

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Please no sarcasm, it does you no credit. I'm just as frustrated by all this as everyone else. I just tried yet again and it doesn't work as you describe. I'm not adding arbitrary staff test I'm following the manual exactly. You have to right-click and reaffirm the Voice selection. I can't think of anything to add to all this.

In reply to by John Morton

I think there is no sarcasm involved here. JoJo just wants to help.

After reading through the conversation I think the possible source of the confusion is that there are two ways to do this:
1. Adding a staff text from the Add→Text→Staff Text menu. Then right-click the text and select "Staff Text Properties", and define which voices should use which "sound".
2. Add predefined "pizz" and "arco" staff-texts from the "text" pallet on the left. These predefined text already are set up to change voice 1 to pizz/arco.

My understanding is that you John are using method 1 above, and are annoyed that when you do this for the second time on a staff, to switch back to arco, the predefined selection in the dialog-window does not show the "current" setting on the branch. It always shows a dialog where all channels have "arco" pre-selected. You would want it to say "pizz" in channel 1 if you previously on the staff did that change. It also has no voice selected for any of the channels, which I guess you think is OK. Not all staff texts will want to apply voice sound changes.

And it is not clear that you have tried method 2. If you do apply the predefined "pizz" text from the text-pallet, and then right-click on it and select "Staff Text Properties" you will see that it will assign voice 1 to the "pizz" sound.

In reply to by AndreasKågedal

Referring to 'rocket science' was patronising, not helpful.

I've been using method 1 and I understood how things work but the manual misleads the user because it does not tell you to select the voice again, when changing back from pizz to arco, even though it is displayed in the dialog and has not been changed, anyway. I've just tried this yet again to make triply, quadruply sure. Until I select the voice, the sound doesn't change. Nevertheless, I can now make it work, which is the main thing. I will leave you to decide whether or not to make changes to avoid future exchanges such as the present one.

In reply to by John Morton

It is important that the voice is not selected by default. The reason is that staff text is used for many other things than switching sound. And if a voice was always assigned a sound (even if the same as earlier in the same staff") that means that if you copy or move (cut/past) the text to some other part of the score, also the assignment of sound would be copied. This is to be expected for the "pizz" text, but not for a "2x tacet" text for instance. So it important that no sound change is included in the "2x tacet" text, even if the change is to the same sound as before.

In reply to by AndreasKågedal

I realise all that. I'm suggesting that the sound and voice command in the dialogue box, once ascribed, should remain until altered. As it is, we have to select the voice again, which isn't made clear, and, at the point of the change back to arco, I would expect the box to still be showing pizz because that is the prevailing command and I would expect the voice to still be highlighted in blue.

In reply to by John Morton

There's no still as it is a new and entirely separate text that doesn't know anything about any other previous channel change text.
It is just a mere staff text that doesn't do any change to those channels.

Even if,if won't make sense to restrict it to voice 1. The texts in the palette do switch all 4 voices

In reply to by John Morton

Again, if you're using the dialog at all, you aren't following the Handbook. The procedure in the Handbook is only for unusual special cases other than pizz or arco, which absolutely do not require use of this dialog at all in most cases.

But in the rare cases where it is needed, indeed, the dialog you bring up for an arco text has no recollection of what voice you might have selected at some point in the past when editing some other text. It just wants you to say which voices this particular text should apply to. It shoudln't matter whether you've ever used this dialog before on another text; MuseScore doesn't keep a history of that. And even it did, what would you expect to happen if you edited the texts out of order?

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

If you look at my OP you will see how the procedure confused me and I thought that others might be similarly confused. That is what this discussion is essentially about. I've tried over and over again and the sound does not change unless the dialogue is invoked.

Generally, when you change note attributes, you select the note, not adjacent text, and this command will stay in force until cancelled, which is what I 'expect'.

I don't see any practically useful end product to this discussion, now, but thank you for your time.

In reply to by John Morton

The usefuyl end will come if you do as we have repeatedly asked and actually attach your score and give precise steps to reproduce the problem you are perceiving. As we keep explaining, the text works perfectly out of the box for all new new or relatively-recently-created created. For especially old ones, worst case is you need to do to Staff/Part Properties and do a "Change Instrument" (back to the same instrument) to reset the channels names to be what they should be. You only need to do that once, so it's a way better approach than constantly bringing up that dialog to change each and every text throughout the score.

But again, in the rare cases where the dialog is needed, it works exactly as we have explained, no "reaffirming" of anything needed. The dialog doesn't have memory of past events that applied to other text, it only knows what you tell it to do with this text.

I could certainly see expecting pizz to be a note property rather than a text property, but since a humn musician needs to see the text, it makes more sense to implement it that way. In any cas,e that has nothing to do with voices or affirmations, and certainly the Handbook is completely clear that the dialog applies to texts, not notes. You can't even get there by selecting a note - it only appears when you right-click atext. So it should be obvious it applies to the text. But again, as we've said, if you feel the wording can be improved, feel free to help out in that way.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Yes it does, no it doesn't...
yes it does, no it doesn't...
yes it does, no it doesn't...

I was suggesting a change in the way the program works. I understand everything else except that, as I, too, have 'repeatedly said', the method doesn't work as the 'perfectly clear' handbook describes.

Have you considered that Apple's backwards-compatibility problem is rearing its head? I'm running Mojave. System changes on a Mac can affect the way applications run. I can't recall the details of the last instance I encountered but I vaguely recall it was a roughly similar glitch.

I have already explained I can't release the score and if I send a test score the results will be inconclusive.

In reply to by John Morton

I continue to be available to help you, but as mentioned repeatedly,. the first step in that would be for you to actually attach your score and give us precise steps to reproduce the problem. Then we can see if the problem is your score or with the steps you are following and show you how to correct it.

I am not sure why you believe you cannot attach the score, but if you are concerned with violating a contract you signed with someone else, just delete all but the relevant measures.

A change to how the program works is certainly possible. First step there then would be to produce some good diagrams outlining your vision for how you think the process should work.

but again, it 99.99% moot, as 99.99% of the time, the dialog is unnecessary. It doesn't need to handed the plain simple cases, as the plain simple cases don't need the dialog. Only the extremely unusual ones do, so be sure your design handles those cases well.

Nothing about what has discussed here seems at all likely to have

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

You have indeed made yourself available and I'm grateful to you and your patience. When you helped me with another problem recently the source of the problem was found to be in the (correct) use of a 12-note tuplet in a bar a few pages forward, so your suggestion of eliminating bars wouldn't produce a conclusive result.

Changing to Mojave caused me to lose the Garritan instruments in Finale, I do remember that, which is why I suggested Mojave as a way out of the dilemma but I have found that, if I reaffirm the voice selection, I can now make everything work so I'm happy. Despite all indications to the contrary, MuseScore is my program of choice and I use it exclusively.

Thank you again, JM.

In reply to by John Morton

I have made some updates (first time!) to the Staff Text Properties sub-chapter in the handbook. These might not be enough to make John happy, but I hope they make the current behavior of the staff text playback properties slightly more clear.

Please have a look, and make updates/corrections (or revert to the old text if you do not think this is the way to describe this).

I think there are also some opportunities for improvements in the Mid-staff sound change chapter. I'll see if I will have go there too, later.

In reply to by John Morton

I know this is an old post, but I have the same problem as you, currently (November 2021)! As I don't need to hear a difference (I use MuseScore to improve orchestral page turns!) I've made my own "pizz." text, without the articulation-change instructions. I've followed the Manual instructions, and changed the stave text and nothing seems to change the output sound from pizz. back to arco, consistently. Tried changing the instrument, too. Sometimes works once and then reverts. Baffling. My latest effort is too long to upload - viola and 'cello part for Russlan and Ludmilla - some of the original page turns are plain awful! But apart from this, I love MuseScore!

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I'm using 3.6 (in MS Windows 10 and Linux), on a new score - but the music keeps sticking in pizz mode if I use the palette version. I've made my own text pizz - which "thinks" I mean arco. Which is fine by me! I've tried changing all the details within the "Stave text properties", so that each voice "box" is coloured and the only way I can consistently get the arco sound is to avoid using the built in "pizz.". I can cope with pizz sounding like arco, but not arco sounding like pizz!

In reply to by KMKelsey

no, pizz. means pizz. and acro means arco. The latter though requires the instrument definition to be up-to-date (name of the channel being 'arco' rather than 'normal') or indeed manual intervention, via the text's properties

If your pizz. sounds arco or your acro sound pizz., if taken from the text paletted and unchanged, please share the score

In reply to by KMKelsey

Are you sure it’s too long to upload? Should be possible to upload entire symphony scores here. But if the system is telling you the file is too big, try saving a copy of the score with all but the relevant measures deleted. Then we can see if you’ve set things up incorrectly and show you how to fix it. Because it definitely works if you do as described here.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Excessive size was my opinion - you really don't need/want the whole document! However, I've tried saving a little bit of the 'cello part (without all my extra playing aid elements, like cues). Doing exactly what I did before - Selecting "Stave Text Properties", and colouring in all the voices, rather than leaving them grey, worked in the score.
This time, using "your" pizz & arco seemed to work, so I wonder if the problem comes from just creating my own "arco" by using CTRL & "t"? This is sometimes easier than selecting an item from the menu with a mouse, and as the "official" arco looks the same as a typed "arco", I can't tell which I used, where! However, I know I have changed the attributes on several occasions and failed to get the sound to revert to arco mode. And I know I've used the official arco without the correct effect happening, more than once!
Still love MuseScore!

Attachment Size
Test_Pizz_Arco.mscz 12.4 KB

In reply to by KMKelsey

Just another comment. Is there anyway that "Stave Text Properties" could be shown when using the Inspector View (without clicking on the link)? That way, one would see straight away if there was a problem in selecting the correct voice attributes. Just an idea! On my current PC there is plenty space, but I realize there might be other problems!

Attachment Size
MuseScore_InspectorViewForText.png 137.29 KB

In reply to by KMKelsey

The 1st pizz. text does nothing, no voice selected, and none switched to pizzicato. So stays at arco, the default for that instrument, not because of the pizz. text at all.
Same for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th arco, those don't set any voice to any channel, so stay whatever the sound was before.
4th arco is correct, as is the 2nd and 3rd pizz.

In reply to by KMKelsey

@KMKelsey... earlier you wrote:
As I don't need to hear a difference (I use MuseScore to improve orchestral page turns!) I've made my own "pizz." text...

So, if the playback sound is unimportant, you can add the 'pizz.' text without the need to adjust 'Staff Text Properties...' at all.

I, as a touch typist, chose to type the instructions rather than use the mouse.

Use of the palette text is also not needed for your use case, so type away (so long as playback is not important).

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

For what it's worth, this doesn't always work, particularly when you're switching back and forth between arco/pizz -- sometimes it just doesn't automatically add the voice change. In that case, as others have said, right click on the text, choose "staff text properties", and select the line(s) you want to change.

In reply to by danmauer

Assuming the instrument is one that supports it and you are using the correct text from the palette, it should always work. If you have a specific score where it doesn’t, please attach the score and precise steps to reproduce the problem. There would have to be a reason it’s not working, and by checking out the score, we should e able to tell you why and how to fix it.

In reply to by cellotrope

As the OP (trouble-causer) I was astonished to receive an email notification indicating the continuance of this problem. Surely, for discourse such as this to persist for such a long period, involving so many, presumably, intelligent people, alarm bells should be ringing in the developers' office. My experience of getting help, in general, has sometimes been impeded by Jojo's occasional shows of arrogance.

I spent some time producing explanatory material and our motto was ' the onus is on the communicators to make themselves understood'. In other words, NEVER assume 'of course, people will know this' and 'of course, people will know that'. We used to assume a blank sheet on the part of the recipient. See things from the point of view of the ignorant.

In reply to by John Morton

So as the producer of explanatory material, didn't you expect the readers to follow the material? Several suggestions have been given here. Did you follow any of them?
You had a problem with wording in the handbook. It was suggested that you could change the wording. Did you do that?
It was also suggested that the palette method of changing pizz. was much faster to use. Did you try that?
You call the people trying to help you "arrogant" and "presumably Intelligent". This doesn't help.

In reply to by bobjp

I followed the material rigorously, over and over again, and the process didn't work. Please believe me because this is turning into a squabble.

With regard to altering the material presented, this merely ducks the problem. Look at all the posts on here from people of average and above intelligence. In their busy lives they are trying to perform a simple operation and they are struggling. It isn't just me. Out of self-respect I would wish to avoid these kinds of problems if I had written the guidelines

I didn't make my remarks about arrogance without adequate provocation. JoJo and I first clashed years ago. An exchange was so unsatisfactory at one point I came close to asking him to avoid my posts in future. It isn't easy to be too hard on people who give this excellent program and their support for free.

Correcting these problems will help things to go smoothly.

In reply to by John Morton

So what exactly from the instructions in is unclear? Repeated here, with emphasis in the part you seem to hae missed:

The following instructions use pizzicato strings as an example, but the same principle can be applied to any other instrument staff that allows sound changes.

  1. Select the first note of the section you want to be pizzicato;
  2. From the main menu, choose AddTextStaff Text or use the shortcut Ctrl+T;
  3. Type "pizz." This text is for visual reference only and does not affect playback;
  4. Right-click on the applied staff text and select Staff Text Properties…;
  5. In the "Change Channel" tab of the "Staff Text Properties" dialog, select one or more voices on the left;
  6. From the dropdown menu, select pizzicato;

Most of the time is it far easier to just apply the corresponding text (pizz., tremolo, arco, mute, open, etc) from the Text Palette.

In reply to by John Morton

No need for squabbling. The instructions definitely work when applied to new score creates in current versions of MuseScore. The text may need adjustment for older scores that used different channel assignment. If you need further assistance, please attach the specific score with the issue and explain at exactly which step something went wrong. Then we can understand and assist.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Right, so when someone says they tried it and it didn't work, it means either:

1) they tried the second method (adding the predefined markings from the palette) but on a too-old score


2) they tried the first method (creating a custom text) but made a mistake somewhere in following the instructions

Either way, if someone encounters an issue, I encourage them to attach their score and describe at exactly which step something went wrong. Then we can understand and assist further.

But generally speaking, I can also guess that 9 times out of 10 it will be that someone tried the first method (because, well, it's listed first) but didn't read step #5 carefully enough and thus neglected to actually select voices. And it is quite unfortunate that this is necessary to begin with. Plenty of room for improvement here.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

And there is a third possibility.

My order of fonts is solo trumpet,solo horn, default font. I have never used the first method to change channels because it just seems time consuming. But i did today just to see if the method works or not. The results were that "pizz" rendered a solo trumpet sound and "arco" went back to the violin sound. Interesting. I removed the trumpet and horn fonts and the score played properly. That means that the first method works as advertised.
So a non-standard font or several fonts or the order of fonts might be a problem.

I don't care that method 1 didn't work properly for me. I don't use it anyway. I move on to what does work.

I like to think that with supreme effort, I can fight my way up to the level of at least average intelligence. But in my present state, even I can see that...
1. Both methods work. And...
2. Why would I ever use the first method to do something as simple as adding a "pizz", when the second method works easier no matter what my font situation is.

In reply to by bobjp

Of course this only works with GM soundfonts, only those are guaranteed to have the mute/open and arco/pizzicato/tremolo sounds at the spots where the instrument definitions expect them.

'pizz.' on trumpet won't do anything, as a trumpet has no channel named "pizzicato", so nothing to change to.
'arco' won't work on a trumpet either, as it doesn't have an "arco" channel. It may work on old scores, where for trumpet as well as violins the normal channel was called ... "normal" rather than "open" and "arco", respectivley.
That "normal" though for example faild for contrabass/double bass, for one arco is normal, for the other plucked AKA pizzicato is normal... hence it cot changed.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

For Mark and JoJo. We're just repeating ourselves over and over again from posts that pre-date the pandemic. The suggestion that "well, if this doesn't work, try that" is quite bizarre. In over 32 years of using PhotoShop, QuarkXpress, Illustrator, (Encore.), Finale.... I've never encountered such a response. I'm out of here now. Thanks, JM.

In reply to by John Morton

No one said such a thing. What we said is, if what you tried didn't work, please attach the score and explain at which specific step of the process something went wrong, so we can better understand the problem and assist. And we do this all for free. If Adobe or other software companies don't offer that level of service, that's too bad indeed, but not surprising.

Anyhow, when you're ready for us to help, you know where to come to get it and what to do to make it possible for us to do so. Our doors are always open. And that offer is open to all.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

This dispute goes back a long, long time and at one point – please don't ask me when – it was suggested that I try selecting the commands from the menu.

The request to send a score is further evidence of the flakiness of the process. I recently had a problem with a tuplet which turned out to be caused by a 12 note tuplet occurring many pages ahead in the score. MuseScore is, far and away, my program of choice but I have had none of these kinds of problems with Finale or Encore. Commands either work or they don't.

I'm not a programmer, but could it be that this lack of 'localization' in the coding may be the source of this weird dispute?

In reply to by John Morton

> "Commands either work or they don't."
True, but when they don't and they should an effort should be made to understand why. So either the commands can be clarified or a bug can be fixed.

In this whole discussion I've not once seen you mention which step of those instructions is failing for you. So far, it also seems to not fail for the others here trying to help you. So either we're not doing the same thing or there's a bug we're trying to understand.
If it's a bug then the request for a score to reproduce that bug in is not at all flakiness; it's because if we are performing the same commands, but getting different results one logical assumption for the cause would be that we are not in the same starting situation. Providing the score that fails for you brings us another step closer to being in the same starting position.
I currently fail to see how trying to understand where the difference is between the commands failing for you and working for us is at all "flaky".

> "I'm not a programmer, but could it be that this lack of 'localization' in the coding may be the source of this weird dispute?"
I'm curious as to why you think localization comes into play here? Or perhaps we have a different understanding of the word. Localization to me means offer the user interface in different languages; a thing that indeed is present in MuseScore (so I don't understand what you mean by the "lack of it"?) but only works as translating the user interface. That process does not affect the internal command processing at all (which is and should be language agnostic).

In reply to by jeetee

Presumably, this whole affair is in the interest of finding a solution??

I don't know which step(s) are failing, or why the steps recommended work for others and not for me (not all – read the comments from others). Please, please, please believe me when I say, yet again, that I followed instructions meticulously, over and over and over again, and the process didn't work.

It is not the request for a score that is flakey, it is the process of adding the effect described in the present discussion.

I believe I made my meaning of the word localization clear. I suggest that actions in one part of a score affect those in a (much) later part of the score in unexpected ways and that this is possibly the source of the problem. In many cases, this is a desirable feature of all programs, of course, because constantly reaffirming something, say, a font size, would be frustrating and time-consuming. As I stated earlier, from my large experience of using a wide variety of programs on a daily basis over many years the present problem has only EVER happened with MuseScore. This was why I mentioned my experience with other programs in a previous post.

Computers do not yet have a mind of their own so there has to be a reason for all this.

In reply to by John Morton

Indeed, the purpose of this forum is to allows users to get help solving their problems. We believe you that your previous attempts failed. We’d like to understand why and help you succeed in the future. So we remain here patiently waiting for you to take the first step in allowing us to help you. The very moment you attach your score and tell us at which step of the documented instructions something goes wrong - that is the very moment we can begin providing assistance. Totally up to you, and again, that offer remains open to everyone.

In reply to by John Morton

If there is one action based philosophy MuseScore uses it is to always do what the action asks and only that. The classic example of this is that changing a note duration for example does that and only that, it doesn't also move notes for example.

So besides selection I'm very curious as to which actions according to you are affecting those in a (much) later part of a score in unexpected ways. But perhaps make those usages into a new topic to not further clutter this one.

In this one we're indeed trying to figure out why a certain chain of commands is failing for you; however without additional information on your part this topic is in a stalemate.

In reply to by jeetee


Condensed version:
In a 4/4 section (at meas. 11) the OP wanted to insert a single bar of 3/4, not considering that a time signature change to 3/4 may affect more than just a single measure. As it turned out, downstream (at bars 28 & 29) there were 12-let tuplets, (each consuming a full measure of 4/4). If made into 3/4, the tuplets would cross a barline and so the message "the tuplet cannot cross the bar line" followed.
Hence the unexpected behavior caused by a score element which is "non-local". That is, the 12-let occurs pages after the current 'locale' where the 3/4 is placed.

(Just sayin', as this has nothing to do with your "localization" -- or arco/pizz for that matter.)

In reply to by jeetee

This is degenerating into a farce. I couldn't provide the affected score if I wanted to because it predates the pandemic. That's how long this has been going on. Please understand I have scores coming out of my ears here and generating a new score for our purposes would be inconclusive because there would always be a chance it would lack the attributes that caused the original problem.

The joke is that I'm not interested in being able to hear the pizz playback. I take a MIDI file into Logic and assign the attributes there. Even that causes problems. (To turn off the panning you turn the knob hard over to the left, not centre it!) I got involved because other people were also having trouble performing such a simple action.

And what's that about CLUTTER? My suggestion is that this may be the very source of the problem we're trying to solve. It's obvious the developers don't know the answer because they keep asking for scores. Also, I don't think, I KNOW that commands in one part of a score affect later parts of the score because of a problem, described above, involving a tuplet. Did anyone get on to that? I did provide a score on that occasion.

You really couldn't write this stuff.

In reply to by John Morton

You joined this thread on 18th of March 2021, one year into the pandemic (yes, we really are in the 2nd year of that pandemic). You'd been asked to share the score a day later. Another day later you claimed the score to be brandnew.

Now you claim to not be interested in pizz. playback, but why back that did you ask for it? That all doesn't make any sense, sorry.

And no, you did not provide a score anywhere in this thread. And an issue about tuplets would not belong here anyway, this thread is about pizz. and arco. Reg. clutter: Please don't shift the topic, instead start a new thread. And don't forget to attach a sample score along with your claims of something being a bug.

You indeed brought up something about MIDI export and pan, well before the pandemic, see
And something about tuplets in January this year, see
If there are still open issues with those, continue there.

In reply to by John Morton

The clutter I was hoping to avoid and mentioned is exactly this; dragging in other topics into this one. I've replied to he one about your time signature change and tuplets over there.

The clutter I referred to is you pulling in yet another unrelated item about exporting MIDI and panning; to which the MIDI standard is rather clear actually, no panning is a value of 64(dead center) and not 0(full left) as you so claim.

The clutter I was referring to were the allusions you made towards what you've called "localization" (be careful, this term has a known an different meaning in the software world, relating to translations) which up to this point are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

A topic about pizz and arco instructions in which you've written:
> "The problem is that when I followed the wording the process didn't work."
But you also are not interested in helping us figuring out where the process failed for you.

Apparently it bothers you enough to post about it (and even try to pin it on other things without as much as an indication of a hint of relation to them) but not enough to actually help us understand or fix it. That's fine, but hardly something to blame on us.

In reply to by jeetee

One of the developers stated that the failure of the panning knob to cancel attributes at the centre before exporting a file was something that they were going to put right. They accepted it was a fault.

There is no onus on a user to help MuseScore to do ANYTHING. I can't imagine where that strange idea came from.

In reply to by John Morton

Even a free and open source software like MuseScore comes at a price: If you sense a bug and want it fixed, you'd have do do whatever it takes to get the bug described. If you don't it won't get fixed. If you do, it may get fixed.
Same for support question, unless you do provide the informatioin you're being asked for, your question won't get (sufficiently) answered.
Same is true BTW for any commercial software... their developers and support personell also can't fix a bug or explain a procedure out of nothing. Only difference there: they may have contractual obligations to really do it.
Well, another difference: if they do, you'd most probabby need to wait on it for very much longer than here.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

As I have explained previously, I have never had such a problem with other software. Yes, they contain bugs, although in my experience I'm rarely aware of them until a bug fix is announced, but I have never encountered a situation such as the present one, where something just doesn't work and the programmers ask the user for assistance. Are you able, hand on heart, looking yourself in the mirror, to absolutely guarantee that there is not a problem such as the one I experienced? If not, what are you going to do about it? I know that actions in one part of the score – the tuplet – affect events elsewhere, several pages further in my case. I mentioned that in case it might be a clue.

In reply to by John Morton

No, I for sure can't say with 100% certainty that there isn't a bug.
But so far you have failed to demonstrate one, even refused to.
The fact that support personell asks the customer for steps to reproduce, in cases where they can't straight away, is perfectly normal. Happens in my $DAYJOB every single day.
A plain "XYZ doesn't work" is just not helping in any form or shape (except sometimes in very simple cases).
And I have never ever experienced any issue with pizz. and arco myself, if I followed the documented procedures.
Again: Tuplets are not the point here... but very certainly entering any tuplet in any measure anywhere in a score does not show any effect in any other part of the score (unless there's a bug, and yes, tuplets did trigger quite a few in the past). What does change things in other (later) parts of a score indeed is changing the time signature. Or an Instrument change. Probably some others too, but certainly thsese are completly normal, expected and wanted effects.

In reply to by John Morton

I'm glad you've never experienced a bug in other software. But I can absolutely assure as someone who has been in that business for several decades - yes, each and every time a bug is reported, the first step is to ask how to reproduce the bug.

Anyhow, I have absolutely zero doubt that you did experience the problem. What neither of us can say with any certainty is whether you experienced the problem because you missed a step in the instructions (such as the part about selecting one or more voice icons, which is the part sometimes missed by others), or because of a bug in the software. But we are unable to reproduce any such problem. So my personal guess is that you simply missed a step, but without your score and the steps you followed, I can't prove it and more than you can prove you didn't. So it's pointless to theorize further.

That's why I'm saying, let's put this aside until such a time comes as you are able to reproduce the problem and show us how to do so as well. Then and only then can we either show you the step you missed, or pinpoint a bug in the software. No further progress is possible until that happens, so why continue the discussion?

And yes, you are right that the rules or musical notation require that adding a time signature to one part of a score affects the rest of the score from that point forward. That isn't relevant here, though.

In reply to by John Morton

Since you are no lo longer able to reproduce the pizzicato/arco problem, then, I propose we simply consider the matter closed for now. Then if you ever do encounter the problem again, you can post again with the score and steps to reproduce the problem. No farce, no joke, no clutter, no need for any further discussion here unless the problem ever does come back. And if it does, then it becomes a simple matter posting that score and the steps to reproduce the problem, then we can assist. Until then, probably best if we all simply go on with our normal work.

In reply to by John Morton

> "There is no onus on a user to help MuseScore to do ANYTHING"
True, but this goes both ways; the notation software support and much of its bug fixing is ran by volunteers without any obligation towards anyone as well.

So if you feel like you're entitled to keep bringing other topics into this one instead of letting this topic rest until you (or anyone else) encounters the issue again and is willing to provide more information don't be surprised if we feel equally entitled to keep trying to actually provide help as well.

In reply to by jeetee

Consider this scenario:
I put a CD into the player in my car. It won't play. So I take my car to the dealer.
Me: CD's don't play. There is something wrong with the player that you need to fix.
Mechanic: Of course. Let me try your CD.
Me: What possible difference will my CD make? You need to fix the player.
Mechanic: Of Course. (Mechanic puts his own CD in the player and it works fine.) Seems to be OK to me. I can't fix something that isn't broken.
Me: But it doesn't work. I put a CD in and it won't play. You need to fix this.
Mechanic: Of course. Just let me try your CD.
Me: That's ridiculous. What possible difference would my CD make? You need to fix the problem with the player.
Mechanic: I don't know. Maybe there is a problem with your CD. Or maybe you're putting it in upside-down.
Me: I don't like your attitude. Just fix the player.

And round and round it goes.

John knows full well that in any software there are multiple ways to do any one procedure. They are not work-arounds. Just different. Procedure 1 to change pizz. is hardly worth the time it takes. Especially when procedure 2 is faster with little chance of error. Why would I bother with 1 at all? There could be any number of reasons that 1 might fail that have nothing to do with the software itself. SOP in this forum is to ask for a score, steps to reproduce the problem, OS, and version of MS. The problem (if there is one) can't be fixed if it can't be found. Yet John steadfastly refuses to help. So what if other software forms don't work that way.

In reply to by bobjp

Reminds me of a real and true story during my apprenticeship as a car mechanic back in the 80s:

Old lady comes to the garage complaining that her car (a VW Polo, from the late 70s) breaks down (engine stalls, won't start again) on every trip after about 10 minutes.
Car mechanic drives the car, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, everything is fine, returns the car to the old lady, "no problem found".
She comes back the next day, complaining about the very same thing, slightly angry. Leaves the car at the garage.
Next day the garage master (!) drives it 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, no problem found, returns it to the lady.
Finally, a few rounds later, with the old lady getting really grumpy, the garage master asks the lady to leave the car at the garage over night and come back the next morning (when the engine is cold) to demonstrate the problem to him

Old lady shows up the next morning, enters the car, pulls the choke, hangs her handbag onto the choke lever and ...

(You need to be as old as me or older to remember or know what a choke is, and know that in this particular car model it gradually disabled itself as the enging gets warmer, normally, i.e. if not being blocked by e.g. a handbag belt...)

In reply to by bobjp

Let me explain my last response concerning 'attitude', which was addressed to the whole team.

1) when I suggested that a lack of localization might (might) be causing the present confusion, I quoted the only proven incidence but, because it involved tuplets, and we're discussing pizz/arco, it was hived off to a different part of the Forum and I'm accused of clutter.

2) When I commented on the confusion regarding the cancellation of pan attributes, which had already been acknowledged by MuseScore as a fix problem on the back-burner, the respondent chose to pick a fight and lecture me about MIDI numbers and then, guess what?, he offered me a fix!

3) I have come close to asking JoJo to avoid my posts, especially since his sarcastic swipe 'it isn't rocket science'. Long before that, I had uploaded a free document to the scores section with a text error. I was told that amendments can't be carried out. When I appealed, JoJo said 'it can't be altered and I won't anyway'. The next thing I know someone else had allowed the amendment.

The car stories are entertaining but inapplicable because there is only one set of menus and the way of using them is pre-defined. Also, I have never had conversations like this with Adobe Systems etc.

The 'attitude' I referred to isn't just obstructive, it is unscientific, and that's what really hurts.

I'm not trying to get the last word but I suggest that, if only for the poor souls observing this saga from the 'outside' we really do call it a day.

In reply to by John Morton

2) What I offered you was a way to get the behavior you're looking for, even though the Pan value for No Pan in the standard is defined as center (64) and not (0). So yes, I don't think there's a bug in MuseScore for following the standard; but even in such a scenario my aim here on these forums is to help users.
Often that is by acknowledging bugs (and on my part very occasionally fixing them) but just as often this is by providing workarounds.

The aim of my responses is to provide understanding and help. Often the latter can only really happen if the former is achieved; both on the side of the one asking the question as on my end in understanding their need.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.