MuseScore 4 Update: Alpha 2 is now released!

• Aug 10, 2022 - 21:57

Hey everyone,

Today, we are delighted to announce the Alpha 2 release of MuseScore 4. This is a major milestone for us because it combines (with four exceptions) all the major work that will be released to the public.

Win -…
Mac -…
Linux -…


What is in MuseScore 4

An entirely new interface
- 400 new icons
- customisable colours
- A new Home tab which includes recent scores, plugins and video tutorials
- A new, friendlier onboarding process

An engraving overhaul
- New system for horizontal spacing
- New system for slurs and ties
- New system for beaming and cross-staff beaming
- New, heavily revised version of Leland and Leland text
- System objects can appear on more than one system (although this is currently only available on certain templates)
- Hundreds of other smaller fixes and optimisations for lyrics, articulation placement, tremolo marks and general positioning
- For a more comprehensive explanation of the engraving changes in MS4, please see this document.

Multiple workflow improvements
- The Properties panel (formerly the inspector) is now much more responsive, easier to understand and filled with lots of useful options
- The capabilities of the note input bar have been expanded and the toolbar itself is now much easier to customise
- A new tuplets toggle
- New articulation buttons
- A new toggle for cross staff beaming
- Parts are easier to discover, edit and alter (using the new 'Instruments' panel)
- The entire flow for creating a new score has had significant UX improvement to help new users become accustomed to the app much more quickly
- Improved instrument definitions
- Instrument descriptions for new users
- Customisable 'Tempo Lines', (accel, rit, etc.) that work with playback

A new mixer


VST instruments and effects support
- Please note that we will be building additional tools, like automation and MIDI mapping in later releases, once MS4 is out

Accessibility improvements
- A new keyboard navigation system that follows best practices to allow users to quickly move around the interface
- Improved screen reader support (in particular, we really need people to test and provide feedback on this)
- An editable high contrast mode

What is still missing

  • Our new orchestral plugin, Muse Sounds, which is installed via a new app called the Muse Hub. This will be available for testing in the Beta release
  • Uploading to is disabled until the Beta release
  • A simple interface for setting playback profiles, which is delayed until the Beta release
  • New multi-measure repeats capability

Reporting issues

About playback

The largest changes we have made have been to playback - a technical investment we decided to make now. It is the sole reason why the timeline of MuseScore 4 was extended beyond 2021. Once you hear Muse Sounds, you'll understand :)

  • The audio engine in MuseScore 4 is completely new
  • There is an entirely new playback events system, which can produce much finer and detailed instructions. These translate to both MIDI and also MIDI 2.0 (which will be advantageous once MIDI 2.0 libraries and products start to become available). The advantages of this system will be properly realised once our new orchestral library, Muse Sounds is ready (in the Beta release).
  • It is also worth mentioning that we have not been able to carry over the systems for mapping and prioritising sounds from MS3. There are two reasons for this: the first is that it is quite technically incompatible with our new system. More importantly, it is not a universal system that could also work with VST. As a result, our highest priority for MuseScore 4.1 is to reintroduce universal systems to allow users to assign sounds to articulations and text instructions. We will also be adding other types of standard VSTi capabilities too, including key switches and automation.
  • We anticipate that there will still be issues with various different VST plugins. We would greatly appreciate it if you would submit any issues you find
  • Please note that when first loading MS4, there is an option to download Muse Sounds. This option will not work until the Beta release

Incompatible features we will re-introduce in later releases

  • There are other features that have not played nicely with our new systems at all, and which will need to be replaced in later releases, namely: the plugin creator (which we want to rewrite completely as a priority), the score comparison tool and the 'Documents side-by-side' feature.


Thank you all for your work! This release is looking amazing. Is there an updated timeline on the release of the beta? I am eager to hear those new sounds. Or maybe some kind of demo even just to hear it.

In reply to by yonah_ag

Not without any side effects. It registers itself as the default app to open .mscz files. So clicking on a file opens it in MS4. To use MS3 you have to drag and drop the file onto the MS3 icon or start MS3 and then open the file from the file menu or by dragging and dropping onto the MS3 window. It also changes the file icon to the MS4 version. Not very friendly!

I tried it and found that irritating and the sound was garbled. So I gave up and uninstalled - I had work to do. Then I had to tell Windows to reinstate MS3 as the default app for .mscz files.

If the user base is being asked to test a potentially bugged alpha version, they should not have to go through hoops to use the stable version for real work.

In reply to by SteveBlower

I think the idea that MS4 would be designated the default for MuseScore files is obviously the right thing to do. It would be pretty bad if we specified that MuseScore 3 should be the default, right?

Secondly, we're only in alpha, so if you are experiencing audio issues, it would be good to report them so we can fix them. That is, after all, why we released the alpha.

In reply to by Tantacrul

Well, whatever your intentions, having scores open in MS4 by default certainly felt like I was being forced to use it. I assumed testing could be a separate exercise, separate from using the stable version for real work that is abd something I could do in a spare moment and I wouldn't mind going through the hoops to do the testing but having the real work diverted to the alpha made the real work more difficult than it should be. When the real work eases off, perhaps I'll have time to look more closely at MS4

In reply to by SteveBlower

FWIW, you didn't need to uninstall the alpha just to tell Windows to change the default file associations - you can do that directly from Explorer (eg, via the right-click menu) without uninstalling anything.

If you consider the case of someone installing the alpha who doesn't already MuseScore 3 installed, then it does indeed seem "obvious" that MuseScore 4 should install itself as the default handler for MSCZ files. Otherwise it will seem broken to not be able to open MuseScore files at all from Explorer.

The only question is, should installation of an alpha change the default file handler on systems that already have something else (e.g., MuseScore 3) installed. I'm not actually sure that's even possible for an installer to determine? But in any case, as mentioned, the workaround is simple, take the few extra seconds to change the default file association back. No need for separate virtual machines or anything like that - the environments really do stay separate otherwise.

But of course, if one doesn't have the time to test MuseScore 4, definitely no pressure on that front!

In reply to by Tantacrul

... that MS4 would be designated the default for MuseScore files is obviously the right thing to do
In general is it, for a release, but certainly not for an Alpha version, probably not for a Beta either, maybe for RC.
That was at least how 2.x and 3.x Alpha and Beta version were handled.

Meanwhile it might be better to use the nightly builds.

In reply to by Tantacrul

For my system (Surface Pro - Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7300U CPU @ 2.60GHz 2.71 GHz - 8GB ram) - the audio was very crackly by default but fixed when I increased the buffer. Is the default buffer size set or does it change according to the system it's running on?

In reply to by SteveBlower

For anyone who doesn't know how to change the file associations on Windows, it's very simple - only five clicks by my count. I made a video showing how to change the default handler from MuseScore 4 back to MuseScore 3:

To be clear: you only need to do this once, and you only need to do it if a) you currently use MuseScore 3, and b) you're in the habit of opening scores from Explorer rather than from within MuseScore itself.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Perhaps the announcement should be edited to warn of the association switch so that users can decide whether it is worth the hassle of a) putting up with not being able to access MS3 by the normal click on a score method or b) going through the procedure to restore the original associatons.

There may be some users interested enough in MS4 testing to do one of those, but probably fewer than there might be if there was no hassle at all.

In reply to by yonah_ag

Yes. The new installation will not replace the old one. Both should work fine side by side.

However, please be advised that copying and pasting between them is not currently possible and most likely won't be for release. You can (of course) simply open a file in MS4 and that will work. If you want to be very careful about managing your scores, you can create a second instance of your score file and open that in MS4 instead, since MS4 files cannot be read in MS3.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Everyone has to decide the risks and what they’re willing to lose if it goes bad. Testing alpha software is perilous. MS4 still crashes just about every time I close it. I suffered a power loss while it was open and the file I was working on was corrupted. It’s pretty stable as far as alpha releases go.

In reply to by Tantacrul

It does. It opens MU4 by default. Uninstalling the Alpha doesn't reinstate the connections to MU3, so you'd have to reinstall MU3 or manually reinstate those connections, pretty tedious. Enough reason for me to not install the Alpha, I do need MU3 for 'production' a lot. I'll stick with the nightlies (which interfere with nothing) or self build ones. A portable app might be an option too, but there's none (yet?) for MU4.

In reply to by yonah_ag

One note that is specific to Linux: if you use the "install" option on the AppImage, the desktop file that gets installed will overwrite the desktop file for MuseScore 3, so the desktop icon will now open MuseScore 4 instead of MuseScore 3. MuseScore 3 itself did not really get replaced, though - you can still run it directly from the command line.

What I recommend on Linux is renaming the MuseScore 3 desktop file before installing MuseScore 4. The default one for MuseScore 3 that gets overwritten by MuseScore 4 is called "mscore-portable.desktop". I renamed this to "mscore-3.desktop". Then after installing Musecore 4, you'll have a new "mscore-portable.desktop", which you then rename to mscore-4.desktop (not necessary, but feels right). So now I have two desktop icons and I can start whichever I like:

Screenshot 2022-08-12 7.19.59 AM.png

Desktop files would normally be in ~/.local/share/applications unless you installed as root, in which case I think they are in /usr/local/share/applications.

BTW, if you don't discover this until too late, don't panic - just reverse these steps (eg, first move the MuseScore 4 desktop file aside, then reinstall the MuseScore 3 AppImage, and optionally rename its desktop file too).

In reply to by yonah_ag

One MacOS (example: 10.15.7) if any MS files are opened they then appear in a dark blue not quite rectangular "logo" - looks like a camera memory card on the desktop interface. Currently the files do appear still to work with MS3 but as I'm trying to keep copies of files separate for MS3 and MS4 use it would be good if files intended to work with MS3 retained their old colouring and appearance on the desktop. I think there's a fix for this in MacOS - but clearly MS4 has changed something to get this visual effect.

Thanks Tantacrul, Oktophonie, Marc, and everyone else who is working on this. I have been WAY more than just impressed with how far Musescore has come as of 3.6.7, and from everything I've been reading I expect v4 will absolutely knock it out of the park.

This ex-Finale, ex-Sibelius, long-time & heavy notation user is 100% behind you all the way. Keep up the great work guys!

That's all very nice. My sincere congratulations for creating MS4!

However, piano compositions written using the old audio engine sound very different in the new audio engine. And by different, I do not think necessary better. Perhaps the waveform of the new piano sound is more realistic, but the waveform is only one aspect of sound. The sustain pedal was "stronger" in the old audio engine, the sound/playback was somehow more uniform and the end result better. I know that all this is subjective and probably the difference is bigger when a composition was fine-tuned to sound better in the old audio engine. I used MS4 on Windows 10.

I had hope that it will be not like that in the final product but now I'm not sure. So I wonder will the old audio engine remain as option in MS4? Will scores uploaded to using MS3 keep the same old sound?

In reply to by callanrustad

I assume that MS4 will eventually work with screen readers for vision impaired users. One such user has already tried to use it, and discovered it doesn't work for him. It would be shame to disadvantage such users, as perhaps a relatively simple code modification could give useful functionality. My understanding is that MuseScore in its 3.6 incarnation is relatively good for people with vision impairments - compared with some of the other more commercially oriented notation software packages.


I note that accessibility improvements are listed as a feature for MS4 - though currently at least one user seems to find the new system less useful than MS3.6. There might be a simple fix.

It would be good if an estimated timescale for such improvements for vision impaired users could be provided, so that they are not neglected as the software evolves and is developed.

In reply to by dave2020X

I'd be very interested in speaking to this user.

We've actually worked very hard on accessibility. First, we support more screen readers and have redesigned keyboard navigation to overcome the limitations of MS3.6 (so you can access anything in the interface or score). Our keyboard navigation also conforms more to standard convention. If there are issues with the screen reader or key navigation, then they are bugs that we'll fix (because we're in alpha, it's highly likely there are still bugs with it).

Incidentally, we have also included a new customisable high-contrast mode, for various other kinds of vision impairment too. All in all, the result (when bugs are squashed) is much better than 3.6. Peter Jonas (who did a lot of the work on 3.6) and myself designed and tested a lot of it.

It would be super useful if the person in question could log the issues they have found, or even join our testing to give us feedback ( We had a round of testing with blind users a few months ago and resolved quite a few issues then. However, it may very well be the case that a few bugs have crept back in since.

Could you possibly relay this message?

In reply to by Tantacrul

FWIW, I've been attempting to assist him as well. I posted a set of tutorial videos to the Development forum to help him and other blind users out - see

So far we've also received feedback from another blind user reporting success and expressing appreciation. I think the issue was mostly one of unfamiliarity with the basic layout of the MuseScore 4, which has changed considerably from MuseScore 3 of course. Attempting to use the same sequence of keystrokes one is accustomed to won't work, and understandably, one might initially be frustrated by this and perhaps give up if one can't figure out the correct method.

There are definitely bugs, of course - it's an alpha, after all - but I can confirm that in my testing, most things do work as well or better than MuseScore 3. I've logged the issues I've found so far on GitHub, and I've also logged any reported to me directly by others.

In reply to by Tantacrul

For some time now I've had a community site associated with my online courses, and there is a space there explicitly for discussion of accessibility concerns. That particular space is not very active, but it's a place where I expect to see feedback come in, since it is a site some blind users are familiar with. As issues are reported there, I do plan to post them to GitHub as appropriate.

For anyone interested in following further discussions in my community, the Accessibility space is here:

In reply to by Lofo

Thanks for the comments! I am indeed forwarding all accessibility issues that I see reported elsewhere to GitHub. Quite a few I see have already been fixed, which is great!

FWIW, accessibility discussions are welcome on as well - whether in the Support forum or the General one. But I do go out of my way in my own courses and community to be as inclusive as I can, so my site does end up being a natural "home room" for blind musicians who are either MuseScore users already or are interested in it.

In reply to by callanrustad

Not for this version, unfortunately, since we had to remove the Zerberus player.

We'll be adding a much nicer sounding version of drumline into MS4 itself in an upcoming release. We weren't able to do this for 4.0 due to the amount of work needed on everything else.

In reply to by Tantacrul

Now have the alpha installed. Imported a wind quartet file - OK. I think the sounds are better - nice!
However the player is only playing one instrument line at a time.

I'm running with MacOS 10.15.7

Is there a setting or fix for that? Do I need to report this in another location?

In reply to by dave2020X

I'm curious: do you mean that when you press play, only one instrument can be heard? I'm wondering if you are perhaps falling foul of some interaction changes we've made?

Check out this (timestamped) video, which explains the interaction change. Let me know if this helps solve your issue.

This may be something we need to create a setting for, so users can disable it.

In reply to by Tantacrul

I'll have to check more carefully - but yes - initially only one instrument could be heard. Scrolling up or down through the staves when playback was off changed which instrument actually played. I also suspected that if I used CMD - A to select all, then the full sound was produced - though I was then unable to turn off the chord playback in the mixer. Early days yet - and more tests required - but out of the box that was what I found with MacOS.

In reply to by dave2020X

Checked further. Partly I had fallen down the trap you mentioned - but even despite that there was/is still a problem. Not all the instruments sound and indeed I noticed that if I selected an instrumental line, that not all the notes would be followed. It was curious watching the notes, and then realising that some were sounding - giving interesting patterns I'd not noticed before - but then the next bunch of notes would not sound. Didn't seem to be any obvious pattern to that.

Also - another MacOS thing. In MacOS menu items are often at the top, so if I want to open close or otherwise get things done I look to the top left first. I opened a full screen version of MS4, but then wanted to shrink it back. Eventually I noticed a small menu bar tucked down at the bottom right which also included a few other features I'd already spotted were "missing" - including the Concert Pitch option. It would be useful if a more obvious indication of Concert Pitch settings could be provided - perhaps a coloured traffic light - somewhere where users might notice it. In the case of Apple kit this is likely to be across the top - though Windows users might prefer such indicators at the bottom or sides.

I use a large screen display so items which appear at the bottom right are a long way from where I normally expect them - some Apple users may still be using smaller screens.

In reply to by dave2020X

From a UX standpoint this is a great point. I use a 29” ultra wide monitor. I possibly have to go a long way to get to the lower right or upper left of the app. There are now 49” ultra wide monitors for gaming and I’m guessing these will become prevalent in music production because you can see so much more of the track in your DAW.

In reply to by Tantacrul

The issue with the mute button not working for chord symbols in the mixer is reported already. Meanwhile, the workaround is to just pull the volume slider all the way down.

The fact that MuseScore 4 now plays only the selected staves is a wonderful feature, one I would not want to have to disable. But after some months of use, I still find myself constantly making the mistake of selecting a single measure to start playback and being surprised I literally get that staff only. So I'm definitely in favor of having a separate discussion on the best way to address that.

Which brings up a question: where is the best place to have those sorts of discussions? That is, things that aren't out and out bugs to report on GitHub, but feedback on how things could possibly be tweaked for better experience, whether it end up happening for 4.0 or afterwards? I'd normally suggest the Development forum because that's what we've always used in the past. But, GitHub is also reasonable. Up until this point, of course, we've also used Discord, but that seems like it's more "internal" even if technically it isn't, and in any case, it's tough to track discussions there on an ongoing / lon-term basis.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Indeed - re the mute button.

I also wonder about the piano keyboard playback. I can see the piano keyboard, but getting it to work seems erratic. I have had sounds by tapping on the virtual keys, but I have also not had any output on other occasions.

Re the sounds of multiple instrument lines - it is still a bit of mystery. I think so far I have reported what I heard - or didn't hear - correctly. If a stave is selected than indeed only the instrument for that line is played - mostly.

To get the whole ensemble to sound either the whole score has to be selected, or alternatively [on MacOS at least] deselected using the ESC button.

I still like the sounds though!

In reply to by dave2020X

There should be no mystery; it's just different from previous versions. If you make a range selection of any kind - whether a single measure or multiple measures, whether a single staff or multiple staves - then only the selected instruments play. That is currently by design, although still open to discussion as mentioned.

But you don't have to select all instruments to play them all - just click a single note (or any other element, really) to start playback of all instruments starting at that point. It's only when you make a range selection that playback is limited to the selected instruments.

FWIW, the sounds aren't significantly different yet. It's when the Muse Sounds library becomes available (planned for the Beta release) that you should expect to be really impressed!

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Please. No need to get fanatic.
I am here only to report what seems fair to me and makes the application better every day. I am not a developer, I am a professional musician and as such, I comment on what I would like to see from a notation app and I think this is one of the fundamental purposes of a forum.
But you know, luckily, I don't need free apps. I can afford a professional notation program like Dorico, where these types of problems are not common.
It's a shame that for those who can't afford a professional app, when someone wants to contribute something to make the app better, they are treated in a derogatory way.
Go figure...
I whish you good luck with MuseScore.

In reply to by Ductus Exemplo

For what it's worth, we have this particular request on our engraving shortlist. It won't be in 4.0 but it will be coming soon. We had a lot of stuff to get in place for this release (all mentioned above).

I would encourage you to compare the engraving defaults between, say, MuseScore 3.5 and MuseScore 4.0 to get a sense of the fairly dramatic improvements that we've made. We really are making large strides in giving users the best capabilities for free.

In reply to by Ductus Exemplo

The thing is that so far nobody with the needed skills and the own urge to need this came along to do it.
Edit: but see above; there's hope!

Downside of OpenSource is that no user has an entitlement to get anything of his or her wishes implemented. Pointing out that a feature still isn't implemented or a certain bug still isn't fixed isn't going to speed up the process. Esp. not when brought up in an entirely unrelated topic, and apparently for the purpose to demonstrate how bad everything is. And for the 2nd time. I somehow fail to see how pointing out an existing issue is a contribution. I also fail to see how mentioning what a real contribution is might be seen as derogatory, it certainly wasn't meant to be.
This very issue seems to have been the only one you had with MuseScore in more than 2 years (and in 4 posts), did you had less than that with Dorico?

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

"This very issue seems to have been the only one you had with MuseScore in more than 2 years (and in 4 posts), did you had less than that with Dorico?"

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly, but let me tell you this:
The problem in question has been around since day one on MuseScore (so more than 10 years) and correcting it would be something essential for someone who wants to write a piano part because it's something that appears very often. I know all the workarounds for this issue, but they do nothing but make the job much slower. Dorico, on the other hand, has never had this particular problem and, for what I need, it never had any bugs or issues that slowed me down.

In reply to by jim.weisgram

...when someone wants to contribute something to make the app better, they are treated in a derogatory way.

Contributors aren't treated badly.
Though under the circumstances and to Jojo's point, "implementing it oneself" is the real, true contribution to MuseScore that trumps mere suggestions, wishes, and especially comments like: Still not implemented... May be I should wait for version... 8?

P.S.: Snickers :-)

In reply to by Jm6stringer

I don't want to spend any more time on this problem since one of the developers has already clarified that the issue in question will be taken into account.
It’s hard for me to understand that the sarcasm of "waiting for version 8" can be somewhat unpleasant for someone who is not from the developer team, but what I notice is that in this forum there is a significant level of fanaticism, which is difficult for me to understand because we are talking about an application, with all the love and respect to the developer’s effort, but still an application.
As we are talking about a problem that has been present since the first day and has not yet been corrected or implemented, I think that the best way to get on the right track is to insist, but it is enough to mention a criticism (sarcastic or not) for someone to immediately spit "do it yourself".
I don't think that's a good way to treat a forum member, but I don’t take it personally either because I really would like to see this app improve.
Lastly, it would be nice to remember that MuseScore, Finale, Dorico, Sibelius etc… are just application not religious institutions.

In reply to by Ductus Exemplo

So you can give sarcastic remarks, but not take them, not take the echo. Interesting.

It’s hard for me to understand that the sarcasm of "waiting for version 8" can be somewhat unpleasant for someone who is not from the developer team
Check the contributors on GitHub, before assuming who is and who isn't on the development team. There's more to it than the in-house paid team, much more.

Anyway, asking for a feature is certainly not a problem.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

First of all, I wasn't writing to you.
Secondly, "Do it you self" was not a sarcastic comment, it was something very direct, and it's not semantics. I've already said that I don't take it personally although it was directed to me.
Lastly, my old teacher once gave me some great advice that I try to follow as best I can...
As I said before, I wish you good luck with MuseScore.

This all is very exciting! Can’t wait to try it out.

I have not seen the reintroduction of the album feature mentioned recently. What are the plans for this (if any)?


Phenomenal work! When can we expect an official release of MuseScore 4? I'm very thankful for all the voluntary work on MuseScore and just can't wait to work with it!

It's excellent ! I tested this second alpha version and it's just impressive! Congratulations to the whole team and thank you for your work!!

During my use of the alpha 2 version, I found that the pedal was not compatible with VST, that is to say that there is no the "sustain reading". Is this intentional or a bug? Anyway, the support of vst remains very convincing and is very suitable!

Thanks for all that work !

In reply to by WEBER

I think this is a related question: I would like to install MS4 Alpha and/or Beta on a Windows 7 laptop so there is no possible conflict with MS3.6.2 (portable) on my Windows 10 computer.

Will MS4 Alpha or Beta run on a Windows 7 computer?

Thank you.

In reply to by viddler

Windows 7 is not supported anymore )by Microsoft) since about 1 1/2 years.
Still, the portable app will never ever conflict with anything, but even the non-portable 3.6.2 won't collide with Mu4 Alpha/Beta/RC or Final, same way it doesn't with 1.3 or 2.3.2. You can have one MuseScore of any major version installed and in use at the same time, and can have as many portable apps 'installed' as you like

After several days of using Alpha 2 successfully on my iMac, it now crashes immediately after launching it since I updated to Monterey 12.5.1. If someone can point me to the folder where the log file would be, I can post it if it would be helpful.

In reply to by Kyle Gray Young

Logs are seldom very helpful. But maybe try running from the command like with the -F option to revert to factory settings. Unfortunately I don't know enough about macOS and in particular how MuseScore 4 is installed on it to help in figuring out how to do that.

EDIT: and yeah, the fact the nightly works is consistent with the idea that there could be some messed up setting in the alpha.

Very good news. I'll wait a little more for testing the beta or the official release which I think it would be at the end of this year maybe? Nice job anyway! I can't wait to see how much new features gonna be available

There are still fundamental functions that went AWOL and are not listed under "What is still missing" above, e.g. missing MIDI properties per staff in the mixer or the vanished MIDI "loading fiddling" dialog. Is it worth reporting these on Github, or is it just "wait (a month? more?) and see"?


In reply to by hmmueller

  • missing MIDI properties per staff in the mixer : We are aware of it, already listed in MuseScore 2 and 3 features not implemented in MuseScore 4 as "MIDI and other controls for staffs in mixer".
  • MIDI "loading fiddling" dialog : I believe this is the missing "MIDI mapping" feature referenced under the announcement, section "VST instruments and effects support". I have added it to the above document.

Hi :)

Maybe this is to early. But is there any function in Musescore 4 that fixes so can put in notes with braille display with correct value and name ?

In reply to by torsivert

Hello! I'm curious to know more about your idea. Are you saying you have a Braille display that lets you type as well as read, and you want to use it to type notes in as an alternative to the standard keyboard-based note input? I can kind of imagine how that might work, but I'd love to hear more about what you had in mind!

Or maybe you mean, you'd like the Braille display to show the Braille equivalent of whatever note you are currently reading? That would probably be relatively simple to add.

By the way, if you haven't noticed, you can now use File / Export to create a Braille version of your score. It's pretty basic but should be useful.


p.s. when can we have sharing and online collaboration?

I am so looking forward to the release of Musescore 4! This software has come such a huge distance since it’s early days! Huge congratulations to all the developers and testers making this possible!

There's no option to choose an ASIO driver in the IO setup, and I don't get audio output when I choose my Focusrite Scarlett. Is this something that's in the works?

In reply to by Bill Reed

In an interesting twist, using my Scarlett is the only way I can get MU4 to give me playback that isn't garbled. I was able to choose the Speakers (Scarlett usb audio) with my headphones plugged in. At last I can try out the software. It's too bad the brass sounds in the default font are not very good.

Keep up the good work, im having a blast with musescore 4, it looks so slick. If you guys keep it up like this then this will be the industry standard soon.

Thank you to all for your work! I am sad about that it's impossible to change braces width. It is only possible with Emmentaller font. It would be great to be able to change the width of the braces or even to have an option to change it automatically depending on the space between staffs in one system. May these features be added sometime?

Hi there,

Been testing out the alpha, it's really great! It could give Dorico a run for it's money - and it's free! The impact this is going to have on music education is huge.

On this note, is it possible to create a sort of "template feature" within the "add instruments" panel? So that I could hit a button that says "Orchestra" and get standard orchestral instruments added for me? It doesn't have to be perfect, no one will mind adding a few extra, more niche, instruments manually; but, if it could be so that the main orchestral sections could be added automatically from the press of a "template" button, that would really speed up the workflow, particularly when sketching.

In reply to by olifitz910

Unless I'm missing something about your question, that's already the case, just click "Create from template" at the top of the window and select the desired template from the list - several different orchestras to choose from, as well as ensemble and more, just as in MuseScore 3.

You can also create your own custom templates just as in MuseScore 3 - set up a score as you like, save it to your Templates folder. Then it's available for reuse in that same dialog.

In reply to by domantasmilev1

There's not going to be an answer to that question. Here are some considerations

From above: What is still missing
*Our new orchestral plugin, Muse Sounds, which is installed via a new app called the Muse Hub. This will be available for testing in the Beta release
*Uploading to is disabled until the Beta release
*A simple interface for setting playback profiles, which is delayed until the Beta release
*New multi-measure repeats capability

*** >>> Plus dealing with bugs in the new features in the Alpha releases so far. And bugs that surface but already existed in 3.6.

It sounds to me that the upcoming beta will have some significant new features. Muse Hub, new playback profiles, and multi-measure repeats.

Maybe it will go to Beta in a month or two. Then likely 2 Beta releases.

My guess: end of the year. But I am not on the project team and I don't have special knowledge.

Musescore4 is certainly a big leap forward from 3.

Can I ask if you plan to add LV2 plugin capability to MS, and if so, when would that happen?

(OS AVLinux MXDE 21)

Musescore does not start with jack. Any attempt to alter audio settings in MS4 while jack is running freezes MS, and requires killing the app and restarting.

I'm using a nightly appimage (29-08-2022), details are below.

OS: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 4.0.0-2945953497, revision: 2f7d29c

In reply to by alextone

Just because JACK not working with MuseScore 4 is a known issue (listed on the above wiki page), does not necessarily mean it is on the developers’ radars. I don’t think it can do any harm to log an issue in GitHub. JACK does not work because Zerberus was removed for 4.0. It will give others interested in this feature the ability to follow it and the progress of the fix or the re-implementation of a different solution that provides similar functionality.

In reply to by Riaan van Niekerk

Jack was available since the very first releases of Musescore, even before version 1, and long time before there was Zerberus. So Jack does not work because Zerberus was removed?
I think it's off the radar because mainly (only) used by Linux users anyway. Nobody cares about Linux users. Same for vst's on Linux. I think it will never come back. (and i seriously doubt vst support for Linux will be implemented some day.)

In reply to by graffesmusic

Just to be clear, we had to make some major changes in MS4, since the audio and playback system has been completely replaced. However, we made sure that Muse Sounds (our new orchestral library) would work on Linux, since it will outperform any third party VST in MuseScore.

We have tons of additional capabilities to add to our playback in future and will not be ignoring Linux along the way.

Does this >There are other features ... which will need to be replaced in later releases, namely: the plugin creator<-- mean that for the production release of MS4.0 we will not be able to either use, edit or create plugins?

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Ok. I've been in the habit of using KDE's Kate editor, so that's no problem. The issue would be debugging as the console output, e.g. "print" statements, appears in the plug-in creator. Perhaps there's some way to redirect it to the system console, or something in the QT environment? Or I suppose create the plug-in using MS3 and then just install it into MS4.

In reply to by rocchio

As a followup to this: First, just note that I am on Linux. I have discovered that if I start Musescore from a command line in an open terminal then any console.log() statements in a plugin's QML code will output to the terminal window MS was started from. So that neatly resolves my concern with not having the plugin creator available, initially, in MS4.0. (In fact, given that I prefer to use my own code editor, this actually makes my own workflow/process easier as I don't need to copy/paste from my editor into the plugin creator to see my debugging output - I should have thought of this a long time ago! lol.)

However, in testing this in the lastest MS4 nightly with one of my custom plugins the plugin crashes MS4. I posted this as an issue on github
[MU4 Issue] MS 3.6 Plugin Crashes in MS4 Nightly #13089

So I just tried it out on a standart ii-V-I Jazz Progression with a walking bass line. The writing process feels a bit smoother and softer. I guess the main issue is still the playback. First i could only get the Chordsymbols create a sound, but the bass stayed quiet. Even though i could hear it play while writing. Strangely i couldn't switch off the mute button on everything but the chord track. Then i connected the chord track to my halion sonic for a better piano sound. Then the other instruments were unmuted an i could hear them play, as long as i hadn't selected any system in the score (don't know if this is intentional, but i like it). But then i copied the same 4 bar bass line in bars 5-8 and it stopped playing the bassline in these bars.

I think you guys are doing a marvellous job with this new version. I don't get the complaining about the default stuff. I hope my feedback helped you guys to make this sweet software obliterate dorico and sibelius (i don't care for finale) with its shining beauty, so i can write a klingon opera with it.


In reply to by reddiesel41264

True.. and then thrown out again because of community feedback.

I'm still all for having that feature, I just hope it'd become a separate command. Where space would just play the full score as it was in MS3 and Ctrl/Cmd+Space (for example) would mean to play back with only selected staves (and possibly even allow non-adjacent staves).

In reply to by jeetee

FWIW, my vote remains, have this by the default so it's easily discoverable, but specifically exclude selections of exactly a single measure on a single staff from this. So any other range selection - a partial measure, multiple measures, a single measure across multiple staves - still triggers the "solo" playback. But the simple act of clicking once to select in an empty location to select a single measure/staff - that should continue to work as usual.

Heck, that in itself could be the trigger - not whether the selection is exactly a single measure/staff, but whether the selection was made by single click or not. That would require a new state variable and it would probably be an opportunity for bugs in the management of it, so maybe not so practical as just checking the size of the selection.

Anyhow, trying to remain open-minded here, and trying to adjust to needing to click individual notes. But it definitely still feels counterintuitive to me and I keep messing up. Will be interesting to see what other feedback comes in.

In reply to by Ruben Remus

Playback doesn't stop at the end of the selection, so there would be no advantage to selecting only a single measure versus selecting two measures.

But, I acknowledge that it would make soloing a single staff take multiple clicks where right now in the current builds it is doable in a single click. So if I can train myself to stop clicking empty spaces when I want to play the full score - which is probably 95% of the time - the in an objective sense, the current design is better. Because it does allow either action to be done in a single click.

Not to be annoying (he said right before asking an exceedingly annoying question) but how do we feel about the new CLAP plugin format? Obviously VST is a much higher priority so I don't expect even the remotest possibility of CLAP support in the initial 4.0 release but any thoughts about tackling this in the future?

I'm confused why it says portable,when nothing in this article says that ,this is the latest release of musescore 4? Am very new to this program,have had Sibelius and guitar pro & this is amazing so far ,when the virtual instruments come out it's going to outdo all .

In reply to by avoirvecu

You wrote:
Am very new to this program...

MuseScore 4 alpha is not intended for general consumption. (Not even a beta version has yet been released.) The MuseScore 4 handbook is in the works, so that's a resource not yet available for any issues you will have as a newcomer.

The latest stable version can be found here:

The current handbook Is available here:
and this is where you should go to ask questions:
especially 'General discussion' and 'Support and bug reports'.

Hey guys, i wanted to share a bug i noticed and has been giving me a hard time when usung the selection filter.

If, and ony if i deselect voice 1, i'm then not able to select an empty bar (for copy/pasting for example).

Also, does the metronome count in get recorded in mp3 exports? that would be really usesful to have!


In reply to by a_droubi

The selection filter things is weird, but not really a bug exactly, and it’s how it has always been. If you are telling MuseScore not to select voice 1, it takes you literally, so indeed you can’t select voice 1. You need to re-enable voice 1 before selecting the destination. Definitely that whole process could be improved.

As far as I know there haven’t been changes to how the metronome works with respect to mp3, but it’s a common request to have that option, so if it isn’t there yet, no doubt it will be at some point.

In reply to by a_droubi

"Hey guys, i wanted to share a bug i noticed and has been giving me a hard time when usung the selection filter." If, and ony if i deselect voice 1, i'm then not able to select an empty bar (for copy/pasting for example)."

You can, not by selecting an empty measure/bar itself, but a rest (e.g. the whole rest) of this measure/bar
Of course, in any case, it is preferable to check voice 1 in the Filter!

Loving the new look a whole lot! a couple problems I've noticed so far (probably have already been mentioned) whenever I try to have multiple scores open at once the second one will open as a separate tab unlike Musescore 3 and will crash when I try to do basically anything on it, also occasionally when I try to input a note/symbol/etc onto a score with multiple instruments the formatting will go all weird and spread out the vertical spacing between staffs.

In reply to by Ryllive

It's normal that scores open in separate windows in MuseScore 4 - this is needed to allow them to each have their own audio profiles (each, different VST's for different scores).

Regarding the formatting, best to start a new thread in the Development forum and attach the score along with steps to reproduce the problem. Could be a bug, could simply be MuseScore trying to fill the page effectively but being more aggressive than you'd like, and there are settings to control that. When you create the new thread with the score, we'll be able to understand and assist better.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

So, it won't be possible to have multiple scores open in the same window as MS 3? Having the ability to have more than one tab open in the same window allows for easier copying and merging of parts of different scores.

Edit. Answer to my question:
"In MuseScore 4, each open score is given a separate OS window, so these windows can be dragged side-by-side to recreate the Split Screen feature in MuseScore 3. (In MuseScore 3, all scores are shown as tabs in a single OS window.)

Congrats on all the amazing progress, this is INCREDIBLY exciting and impressive!

I just wanted to note that (unless I'm missing something), forum announcements like this one are not directly visible from - and for such an important announcement, that seems like a great shame. I have been eagerly checking the News link in the Activity dropdown ( for recent updates, but the recent announcements, including this one, are not shown there. So I only stumbled across this announcement by accident several weeks after the fact.

So it would be great if the Announcements section of the forum was somehow synchronized with the News section, and with the corresponding "Latest news" section on the homepage. I don't know enough about how your CMS works to suggest how to accomplish that effectively though.

Thanks again!

In reply to by adam.spiers

As have I, Adam. I do tend to be persistent and happened on this thread, which I've bookmarked. But I agree: these discussions do merit a bit more visibility: they are indeed newsworthy. Of course, I realise that for the person trying to keep News items current, the fact that a lot of this surfaces deep in the bowels of the Announcement section must make the endeavour seem a bit like herding cats. So, there's that. No really obvious solutions suggest themselves, unfortunately.

In reply to by Shoichi

This is true, Shoichi. And it is helpful. I guess I'm refering to that landing page which has a menu option "Activity" -> "News"... which seems - well, to me, an intuitive place to start looking for updates on progress on the next version. I do recognise that in the grand scheme of things, the information IS there... not sure if there is a solution to make it easier to find.

In reply to by Shoichi

Yeah thanks Shoichi, I found that before reporting this issue but it doesn't really help the underlying problem that the announcements are not easily discoverable. This is compounded by the fact that we have "News" and "Announcements", where only "News" is clearly visible from the home page, but apparently only "Announcements" is being kept updated. I think it would be better to scrap one of them, converge on the other, and make sure that is easily discoverable both from the home page and the forums.

In reply to by robynsveil

Thanks @robynsveil, a few potential solutions spring to mind:

  • Ensure that all important announcements are covered not just in the Announcements section of the forum, but also in News.
  • Add a link from the homepage to Announcements.
  • Automatically embed the 2 or 3 most recent announcements from that forums section within the home page.
  • Scrap the News thing altogether, and just use Announcements.
  • Scrap Announcements, and just use News (although I guess this would prevent discussions on announcements, which is not good).

Just downloaded it yesterday, noticed I couldn't use the number pad for inputting notes. That was really convenient on Musescore 3. Otherwise, loving it so far and can't wait for the full release

Thank you for all your hard work on this great program! It's been a lifesaver for me. Does anyone know if this release fixes the abc import issue? I've really been struggling with that one.

are you planning to improve the numpad note input to make it more efficient/faster? I understand that is one of Sibelius clear advantages over Musescore

In reply to by lucayala

Hello! It's not clear what you're asking here, but I recommend you start a new thread in the Support forum and explain in more detail what you mean. As far as I know, the keyboard input in Sibelius is virtually identical to MuseScore - in fact Sibelius was used as the model when MuseScore was first being developed. So when you start the new thread, be sure to attach a sample score and describe how you are currently entering notes and what you'd propose using instead. Then we can understand and assist better.

"The largest changes we have made have been to playback "

Am I wrong in thinking that if I open a fully functional file created in the latest 3 MS that it should playback just fine?

In reply to by jeetee

There seems to be a hiccup when playing back this file.

The fourth eighth note that is tied to the half note apparently doesn't play.

The original file was created in OS: Windows 7 SP 1 (6.1), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit):, revision: 3224f34.

The opened in OS: Windows 7 Version 6.1 (Build 7601: SP 1), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 4.0.0-2826033426, revision: abc123456

Then saved as a 4 file and truncated to the current size.

Attachment Size
MS4-Problem playback.mscz 23.26 KB

The distance between frame and margin or between staff and margin is always more compare to earlier version. When we change the top margin value in page style it is affecting the header text. We can adjust header in style but I think this may be an error occured.

Attachment Size
Top margin error.png 28.33 KB

In reply to by ShijinSherin

It could be - would you please start a separate thread in the Development forum and attach your actual score so we can investigate? If it does turn out to be a but rather than just a change in the defaults - headers do work differently in MuseScore 4 by design - then the place to report it would be on GitHub, as mentioned in the original announcement above.

This already looks and from what I've done so far feels fantastic! Definitely looking forward to what the MuseScore team has planned for future releases and for the Beta release when that time has come.

As for now, I'll have to make do with using Alpha and swapping to 3.6 if something becomes undoable

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I'm new to the nightly build business. I have an earlier MS 4 Alpha 2 installed, but when I downloaded a nightly build, my Windows 10 PC choked on what to do with a .7z file. I assume it's some form of compressed zip file, but I haven't monkeyed with them much for a decade or two. Is there a quick answer or a How To on installing nightly builds?

Continuous view and velocity-I am not seeing them and I am crying, and very happy that Musescore has boldly gone where rebellious notation software and final notation software will never go. Thanks to the team at MuseScore.

I keep trying to find something about Musescore 4 that I like, but so far, no luck! The interface is clunky and ugly. There is barely any room left for the score because the mixer takes up so much space. Too many of the really neat things about 3.6 are disabled. I hear that the new sound engine will be the best thing since sliced bread, but after looking at the other improvements, I am highly doubtful.

Personally, even if 4.0 will send the entire Chicago Symphony Orchestra to my front door just to play my scores, it will not be worth overcoming all of the bad things in 4.0. I hope that there will be a fork that continues to develop 3.6. Otherwise, as far as I can see, it's time to ditch MS and go back to Finale or Sibelius.

In reply to by Jim Ivy

@jim Ivy
I was for 15 years (since 1983) the official demonstrator of Finale for Midi Music Italy then I switched to MuseScore with which I wrote all my books published by Ricordi, Carish, Volontè & Coo, etc. MuseScore 3.6.2. it's very nice and I think version 4 will be amazing even if you can't use NotePerformer as a sound library, unfortunately! I have been working with Dorico for a year and I must say that except for __ condensation__, very useful, it is very __ uncomfortable__ to use and laborious in case you have to write music books (Harmony, Theory, Counterpoint, etc.). So, my final choice will be to abandon Dorico and work absolutely and only with MuseScore.
Excuse my English, I'm Italian and I don't know the language.
Good Music to all.

In reply to by Jim Ivy

I'm just not sure how you can tell you are being abandoned by experimenting with an incomplete alpha. It's hard to say how much of what you see will actually be in the final version. I don't depend on notation software for a living. I compose as a hobby. So being able to manipulate the score to get decent playback is important to me. MuseScore isn't quite there, yet.

In reply to by bobjp

My personal preference would be that very little of what I see in the nightly releases will be in 4.0 when it is released. I spend a significant portion of each day in Musescore and I like 3.6 very much.

I can work quite quickly in 3.6 because I have invested quite a bit of time in learning where everything is and how to solve the quirks that pop up now and again. With 4.0, even if the same functions are there, I will have to re-learn where everything is. And quite frankly, though it is a small matter, I do not like the "look" of the colors and icons. I keep looking for the start and rewind buttons and it takes me a bit to realize that they are still there but just the wrong color!

I have several hundred files that will need to be converted if I move to 4.0. Given my age, there is a real possibility that I will not live long enough to complete that task! Let alone meet my goal of adding another 100 or so arrangements before the end of this year.

I am all for an improved and more realistic playback and I look forward to having a chance to examine Muse Sounds. Hopefully, 4.0 will allow me to create demo recordings of higher quality more quickly. But my main concern is creating printed parts that I can hand out to my musicians. I spend more time checking individual parts than on any other task.

I most often use Musescore's HQ SoundFont and I have noticed that when I load an existing file into 4.0, even if I use the same SoundFont the playback is glaringly worse. Some notes jump out very loud and others don't play at all. Every now and then I use a custom SoundFont or sfz file for an instrument that is not available in the GM specs. For instance bicycle bells and horns and in one piece, cows mooing. What will happen if I update those files to 4.0?

In reply to by Jim Ivy

Indeed, it's tough learning to get used to a new UI. But I do think it will be worth it. And in any case, 3.6.2 won't suddenly stop working!

No special "conversion" should be needed when loading MuseScore 3 scores - they should just work, but look very much better because of the massive engraving improvements, and sound better if you use Muse Sounds.

The current nightly builds have known issues with articulations and other markings causing inappropriate volume changes. That's just a bug (well, two or three separate bugs, most likely) and there is no reason to think this won't be fixed before release. I know some of that work has been deliberately put off until Muse Sounds is ready, so that ideally the work can be done in a way that works well for both playback engines.

For specialty soundfonts, MuseScore 4 still allows you to load them; it's all done in the Mixer now. The mechanism for selecting which sound within the soundfont to use is one of those things that unfortunately is not likely to be there by the initial 4.0 release but you can certainly expect soon after. So for now, General MIDI soundfonts work as expected, as do soundfonts with only a single sound, but if you have a non-GM soundfont with multiple sounds in it that you want to select between for different instruments, there isn't yet a way. This is, I suspect, a bigger issue for more people than lack of the piano roll editor, and it may well be the single biggest reason some people will want to hold off on moving to MuseScore 4 for a little while. Although for at least some of those people, Muse Sounds or VST will provide better solutions.

Anyhow, if it helps - I know you were a band director - think of this as being like a move to a new building with a larger and more modern space, full of promise and potential, but for the first few months it's going to be an adjustment and not everything is set up yet and you miss how things were in the old band room. Absolutely, I can't promise you'll love the first few months in the new digs unequivocally. I do predict that eventually you won't want to go back.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

The mechanism for selecting which sound within the soundfont to use is one of those things that unfortunately is not likely to be there by the initial 4.0 release ...

Oh, that will certainly affect me as my instrument, the Mountain Dulcimer, is not part of the GM sounds and so I use a custom soundfont with a few variations of the instrument in it. : (

So I guess I'll be on MS 3.6 until both that and the plugin system is fully functional.

In reply to by rocchio

When you say “custom”, do you mean, you created or customized it yourself? If so, simply change it to be separate soundfonts for each sound. Even if you didn’t create it yourself, that would be a pretty simply modification to make. And very likely you’d find VST instruments as well.

For plugins, most things work as I understand it, even if “officially” it’s not “supported” yet.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

simply change it to be separate soundfonts for each sound. <-- I could, tho then I'd be managing 5 different soundfont files.

Re the plugins - for Mtn Dulcimer I am fully dependent on my plugins, so not having that subsystem fully operational just feels uncomfortable in terms of making the leap.

I do wish to make clear that I've no complaints. The Musescore project is wonderful. I'm looking forward to 4.x. And the effort being put in by you-all is greatly appreciated. Indeed, I feel a bit guilty that my old programming skills are not up to the task of pitching in and helping actually.

I'm Linux and open source all the way; and like to be in that interstice between leading-edge and bleeding-edge, which is why I use fedora. So I'll definitely continue trying out the nightly builds on-the-go and make the leap when it feels right for me. Probably, for me, the key is going to be the plugin subsystem.

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