TubaForum.net

I actually might get a day off on Friday to play around with learning a new notation program. My publisher colleague who is a tubist and publishes a ton of tuba related materials said most of his composers are using MuseScore, a free software.

I asked on the socials and seemed like I attracted the Dorico crowd.

Has anyone had any limitations using Musescore. As I have a computer than can run the software better now, I am looking to do more arrangements. There might be opportunities to do work sheets and research. I will fully commit to one to try to learn it as well as I did finale, so before I go with the free one, has anyone had any limitations with it?

Another reason I want to learn just one is to help my students down the line as well. I could with Finale and if it was something super complex, I know someone (Bryan) who knows the program better than the developers.

I’m no expert. I teach band and do a lot of arranging and writing of exercises and I do it all on Musescore. I personally don’t see any point in buying something that i’m not going to make money from if there’s a free option. Even if it’s a little more clunky. Which I don’t think it is. Someone’s going to say I don’t know what I’m talking about and they’re probably right.

I use MuseScore for printing out single parts, no scores as of yet, but I think it's a tremendous piece of software, especially for free. It is capable of generating extremely fine-looking output. Near as I can tell there isn't anything it can't do. It's easy and intuitive to use. Plus there is a great number of youtube tutorials for it.

I've used MuseScore to make arrangements for solo tuba and piano, brass quintet, Oktoberfest band, and full orchestra. I vaguely recall one time there being something that MuseScore simply couldn't do, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. It must not have been very important.

For everything else, MuseScore probably has some way of handling it, albeit a bit jankily. There is a lot of documentation online, so most questions can be answered with a quick Google search.

I use Musescore frequently. I'm not an expert, though, so I'm sure some of the things I think are shortcomings are really just operator ignorance. I enjoy using it, and for most of what I do, it's pretty easy, fairly powerful. I use it for trombone quartets and brass quintets. If you want to look up some of my stuff, my username is hyperbone https://musescore.com/user/30921101. Here are my main issues with Musescore:

- Sometimes it gets in a mode where it cannot get the stems to go the right direction. Happens a lot when you change the instrument of a set of notes. (select note and hit X on keyboard to flip flag)
- Grouping/flagging eighth notes is too difficult
- working in 6/8, 9/8 or 12/8 is mind-numbingly stupid
- You've got to format a score in a certain way so that when Musescore reformats something and it pushes notes/system around everything can jump in such a way that you lose your place. The automatic format functions make it a bit squirrelly sometimes.
- sometimes if you don't know the exact terminology for something, it can be really hard to find, even in the help. If you don't know what a tremolo is, you can waste a lot of time finding it. Terminology from other instruments, like strings, keyboard, percussion can be tough to identify.
- figuring out the rules for codas can be tough (search Frames)
- Resizing the Segno sign took a while (use properties pane)
- if you want to scale up or down an entire score, I'm still not sure how to do that. Lots of random button pushing in the format settings pages
- if you're working with other people's stuff, sometimes people do things to make Musescore work predictably, most notably a ritard over several measures might be notated by applying a slower tempo mark to each consecutive beat - this is just a huge kluge - a heavy handed way to make the software slow down. This should be handled more professionally using the ritard function.
- It won't make a click track for you automatically. You have to add another instrument, like cowbell and the add quarter notes for each measure. It's not hard to do, but it's something predictable that the software should be able to handle itself easily.

Using Google for musescore help is usually pretty productive, using either the Musescore help or YouTube. Warning - YouTube has a tendency to waste a lot of your time - content creators measure how much time you spend on their videos, so they aren't motivated to give you concise answers - you generally have to wade through a lot of irrelevant crap to get at what you want. I get most detailed/correct answers from the Q&A sections of the musescore site.

Bassboner wrote: Tue May 19, 2026 7:40 pm
- You've got to format a score in a certain way so that when Musescore reformats something and it pushes notes/system around everything can jump in such a way that you lose your place. The automatic format functions make it a bit squirrelly sometimes.
- if you want to scale up or down an entire score, I'm still not sure how to do that. Lots of random button pushing in the format settings pages
- It won't make a click track for you automatically. You have to add another instrument, like cowbell and the add quarter notes for each measure. It's not hard to do, but it's something predictable that the software should be able to handle itself easily.

Using the layout palette to put in line and page breaks where you want them is super helpful. They also recently added an option to select a group of measures, right click, and "create system from measures" which will force them together no matter how dense or sparse it might end up being.

Scaling a whole score is easiest done in Format -> Page Settings -> Staff Space. I'd go as low as 0.025 for big orchestral scores and as high as 0.075 for stuff like quartets. Everything bases its size off this number, unless you force it to a different size in the Format -> Styles menu (which is a lot of work and needs to be cleaned up)

There is actually an easy way to get a click track using the built in metronome. It's a default channel in the mixer that is normally muted. You can unmute it to get a click along with your music (using the mixer or the button at top right), or use the mixer to "solo" the metronome channel and export that to get a clean click that follows time signatures and tempos.

As for the other stuff you said, most of that is someone making poor design decisions without thinking of the users. Your problems with compounds meters might be a little less if you play around with the rhythm-based entry mode, where you choose the note first then enter durations with the number keys (the opposite of the regular setup). It's the little golf-tee looking thing in the top left.

Hopefully this is a little helpful for anyone struggling with those issues!

I started using it and then discontinued because I was getting some weird glitches in my scores. At one point there was a whole page that refused to appear when refreshed my screen. I had parts missing. Then it showed up again later on. I ended up using Finale. However, I think it is good for single lines or maybe a quartet. Maybe they've improved it since I last used it?

Perhaps I'm the only hater here, but I have had extreme frustrations with the limitations of Musescore. For things like quartets and quintets. I can't imagine trying to score a band piece in that thing. Yes it's free, but it is limited. But I was a Finale user from decades ago, and expect that functionality in a publishing program; I'm not picky on the Wade level in terms of appearance but I want it to actually work and not get all tied up in impossibilities that make you struggle.
I haven't used Dorico yet because I have not upgraded my OS since I got Finale 27. I almost don't use it any more but did give up on Musescore, having it go haywire trying to change keys or instrument transpositions. Maybe I'm just too dumb to use it, but I wasn't too dumb to use Finale, so, whatever.

I've used MS exrensively for over 10 years. Like any complicated program, there is a learning curve. I can produce band scores, brass band scores, and chamber scores quickly now that I struggled with in the early going. Most people asking for help on the [excellent] help forum find that it is not reading the manual that causes their problems. Also, the latest versions are head and shoulders above the early ones in terms of ease of use and precision. On the downside, though, the playback is not very pretty sounding, nor is it billed as such. Writing the drum parts is still clunky, same as for other programs, but is miles ahead of the earlier versions.
In summary, it does everything I need and much more should I desire to go crazy with it. I publish and it is always accepted as is.

scottw

My experience with it is not the best. I'm using Finale for nearly 20 years now and I didn't try writing something down in MS but after downloading some sheet music of others for free I felt like publishing some of my arrangements there.
Importing the XML files was straightforward and looked ok. BUT ... ... after publishing everything written had changed to unplayable bullshirt. Luckily I had checked immediately so I could delete it.

I tried Dorico briefly. It made a very bad impression. Currently I'd be using Lilypond, if I were writing something.

What I expect if and when I have to delve into Dorico is a learning curve for something that absolutely does not feel intuitive. My drive to arrange or write is near zero and I have no idea if it will come back.

The low bar for entry does lead to a lot of people making poor use of the tool. You can't really blame the software for that. I think for a free music notation tool, Musescore is pretty awesome. It does take some investment to learn it. All software has quirks.

The guy who lead the most recent developments in Musescore is now leading development on Audacity. There is a YouTube video that lays out some of his development philosophy. It's worth watching if you're interested in this stuff.

I spent 20 years learning and teaching Solidworks, a complex 3d modeling software. It's funny how many parallels you can see between any complex or powerful softwares when it comes to interface, "discoverability", and trying to keep users from getting themselves into trouble.

donn wrote: Thu May 21, 2026 12:52 pm Currently I'd be using Lilypond, if I were writing something.

I've been playing around with it lately, too. Very high bar to entry on it...it's more like coding than writing music. The trade-off is that it's extremely flexible and I really like how the final result looks.

I do most of my writing and presentations in LaTex so Lilypond was very intuitive for me. However, since I am really a beginner at arranging I rely on the real time payback feature on musescore constantly.

One thing that I can say about Lilypond, it's transparent. Most alternatives are WSIWYG - what you see, is what you get.

With Lilypond, no, you don't see the output musical notation while you're working on it. But you do see what you did. A graphical editor can be a little ambiguous about that, where different editing choices can result in the apparently same presentation, until something else is added and it gets weirder and it isn't obvious where it needs to be unkinked. With Lilypond you work on a document source, and there's no guessing about what's in it - it's right there in black and white.

Did a few hours on MuseScore today. I had Finale 2012 prior, and I will say once I learned how to do the slur and dynamic entry, it was easier and cleaner. It didn't import XML very well, and when transposing parts to a third or whatnot, the slurs didn't maintain well. If and when you enter a note wrong, adding a dot, making something a natural that was a flat in the key signature, It just didn't work well. Finale has it beat by miles.

Also, doing edits and realizing if I do a random click when moving scores, it is causing errors galore that I didn't enter. I will try Dorico and report back.

MuseScore is not Finale, Sibelius, or Dorico. A couple of hours is not nearly enough time to understand how it differs and become used to those differences. Give it more time.

russiantuba wrote: Sat May 23, 2026 3:02 pm when transposing parts to a third or whatnot, the slurs didn't maintain well.

Also, doing edits and realizing if I do a random click when moving scores, it is causing errors galore that I didn't enter. I will try Dorico and report back.

For positioning issues, musescore is definitely set up for "compose, THEN engrave". Once I have all the notes the way I want, I select all, then go format -> reset positions and it does a solid job.

If you're used to clicking and dragging to navigate your score, try using the scroll wheel for vertical, shift-scroll for horizontal, and ctrl-scroll for zoom to get around. I find it's way faster and I'm less likely to accidentally click on something. I use it enough that I put shift and ctrl on my mouse thumb buttons to get around faster.

My recommendation for trying out tools like this is to take a big project you've done before, something that took a week or more to complete, and do it again with each new tool. Even better, a low-stakes current project. If you just mess around a little you won't get into the flow that each program is designed to give you, and you'll just end up missing how finale works

Colby Fahrenbacher wrote: Sat May 23, 2026 8:26 pm MuseScore is not Finale, Sibelius, or Dorico. A couple of hours is not nearly enough time to understand how it differs and become used to those differences. Give it more time.

No kidding…otherwise there would be no complaints from anyone. I will mention the program was crashing a couple of times.

So it was raining outside so all the yard work I had planned went to trying Dorico, to give them both a fair shot. I went to enter and engrave the same piece as I did on MuseScore, the first piece I ever had published.unused the free version.

Dorico was a major pain from the start. I did have to google a few things with MuseScore, but it seemed like everything I did required a google and video. The piece had everything from multiple layers (voices), solo and piano, dynamic markings, as expected. I can see why someone with a ton of time to learn the program might like it, and some people told me the ability to easily do staccatos and accents on multiple notes and parts was easier, but MuseScore has the same feature (maybe newer finale versions than my 2012 did, can’t comment there).

As I get older, even for these type of arrangements and routines, I try to make them look a hair neater and clean. The editing and engraving part of Dorico was near impossible. It was headache after headache. I tried to engrave something exactly, a syncopated quarter that it tried to do as tied eighth notes, and I changed every setting, did digging, and even asked a publisher, and it didn’t work.

The publisher, a tubist with over 10,000 titles between his companies, was sent my samples from musescore and Dorico. He said the musescore visually looked night and day better. Ironically, I spent way more time on the Dorico.

He mentioned he felt Dorico was still in Beta, and I would agree 1000% with that. I feel you can do more long term with it. But, is it worth the headache?

To answer other questions I pose, and if I had to suggest one to an undergrad student, if they were education or performance, I’d suggest Musescore, but if they were going to do a ton of composing and arranging, and were young and didn’t have a ton of deadlines, then Dorico.

If I were 18 again and living in a boring, uneventful West Texas city at an undergrad with nothing to do but practice and sit around and research music like back in the day, before the use of smart phones, I would probably do Dorico and slowly learn it. But I’m not 18 and have a million things to do