Whatever you end up doing, I’d love to see the final result.
Muse is something I played with very briefly… an early version of the program, before it introduced it’s version of responsiveness. I can understand the appeal. It’s more like InDesign for websites. Very few constraints design-wise. Unfortunately, the code it produces is an absolute nightmare. I took one look at it and vowed to never build a website in the program. Eventually, (ironically) Adobe came to the same conclusion, and realized their software was filling up the web with garbage code, (which I can only assume is why they discontinued it.) I can’t even begin to image how you’d edit a Muse-created site in Pinegrow. It would be torturous.
To create your vision in a “best practices” sort of manner will be difficult to do in any “drag-n-drop” or WYSIWYG type of software, because few of them follow best practices. Pinegrow is just about the best implementation I’ve seen of visual site-building tools that don’t result in code that is gobblydegook. But that’s because all Pinegrow really does is give you a way to manipulate code visually. The trade-off is that to take advantage of its time-saving features, you kinda need to understand what it’s doing “under the hood.” I think of this program more as a CSS/HTML editor than a website builder. If you know what you want your site to look like, and do, you can type it all out in Notepad (or some other text editor) or you can “lay it out” in Pinegrow (and you may still need to do some typing here and there) but ultimately, your doing the same thing in both programs.
Muse (or Wix or Weebly or Webflow) (lots of "w’s huh?) will spare you the pain of dealing directly with the code, but there will be trade-offs, the main one being that you’ll never fully understand what you created in the programs.