Skip to main content

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all Show Posts made by this member. Note that you can only see Show Posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - adge

General Discussion / Reinstalling on new computer
Hi. I have bought a new computer - Windows 7 - and am trying to move NWC to it. I originally bought NWC 1.75, and then the upgrade to NWC2. The instructions say install 1.75 first, and then upgrade on the new computer; but I can't install 1.75 on a Windows 7 system. If I try just running the upgrader it says I need 2.1 installed - I don't remember NWC 2.1. Is there any way round all this, or do I just bite the bullet and buy a new copy?
General Discussion / Play Toolbar Buttons

Is there any way of putting the 'Play from current measure', 'Play from two measures back', 'Play from start' etc options on toolbar buttons? I find I'm swapping quite frequently between them, and getting a shade bored with 'Tools>Options'. It's probably buried in the toolbar customisation, but I just can't spot it.

General Discussion / Re: Serious bug in length of Whole Notes (But Not Rests)
As the Dolmetsch page referred to above makes clear, there are two different rests, with (usually) identical form: the semibreve or whole-note rest, always equal to four crotchets or quarter-notes, and the whole-bar rest, always equal to one bar. (Occasionally the whole-bar rest is notated in a form similar to a breve rest or to a longa rest, or as a short sloping line, a smaller version of the sloping stroke often used for multiple bars of rests.) There is no such thing as a whole-bar note, though, but the use of the breve in Anglican chant comes very close to it.
I wish the two rests had been made distinct, but that's life. I would also like NWC to distinguish them. It would involve code capable of mind-reading, but judging by what is already in NWC, that may not be asking too much.
If NWC does finally include breves (hint hint) will the breve rest symbol also be usable as a whole-bar rest symbol?
User Tools / Re: Comments
Noteworthy Online - Thank you; I should have found this; I am an idiot; thank you for not telling me so.

Rick G - You are a better coder than me. I often find that the script finishes, but produces something different from what I expected. Without some means of monitoring flow and checking values of variables it is hard to find the bug. Thank you, though.

User Tools / Comments
Can I put comments into a clip text file? It would help diagnosis a lot. And what happens to SYSERR if the script completes OK?
General Discussion / Re: Four-line staves and leger lines
Not all plainsong is ancient, and the notation is the one in current use - I'm not trying to emulate ancient notation. (Though I wish I could; ah, neumes in Noteworthy... Just a pipedream, alas.)
General Discussion / Four-line staves and leger lines
I am trying to write some plainsong. I have suppressed the note stems successfully, and I can fake the plainsong clef as a "common time" mark and an invisible alto clef; and I can set the staff to be a four-line staff not five. But the leger lines seem to go wrong, and I can't see why.

I think this is the relevant bit of the file:

|StaffProperties|EndingBar:Section Close|Visible:Y|BoundaryTop:12|BoundaryBottom:12|Lines:4|Style:Standard|Layer:N|Color:Highlight 1

The two Gs just before the end should be on leger lines, but either the lines are missing or they are too short to show.
What am I doing wrong, please?
General Discussion / Hidden clefs and alignment
When I hide clefs (along with the keysignature and time signature) in order to layer it with a visible staff for cues, trills and the like, the alignment with the corresponding visible items on other staves changes. This does not affect printing, (obviously!) but it does make the layered visible staff messy. Is there a reason for this behaviour, what are the rules it follows, and can I turn it off?
General Discussion / Re: priorities
PLEASE don't forget the breve!

And also, "force system break" that does not force the line to full width. Then we can put multiple small pieces on one page.

Negative values in the "Extra note spacing" would be really useful, but it looks so easy that there must be some strong technical problem for not allowing it, so alas...

But there is so much good stuff in 2.0 that I wouldn't want the release date to be put back for any of these.
General Discussion / Re: Wide Spacing
Thanks - some really good ideas there. I hadnt appreciated the power of user fonts.

This is a really supportive forum for a brilliant program.
General Discussion / Wide Spacing
I do a fair amount of mediaeval music, including therefore some plainsong sections, which I set with stemless notes. While the ordinary note spacing is fine for normal music, stemless notes look a long way apart. Can I close them up in any way? I hioped the Extra Space option would help, but it only seems to accept positive values, not negative ones.
General Discussion / Re: autobeam issue in split measures
Beaming across barlines is quite common in modern transcriptions of late mediaeval and renaissance music, when composers were much more flexible about rhythm than is usually the case nowadays, and modern players often have difficulty reading bars of irregular length. NWC seems not to have a 'don't count me - just print me' barline; perhaps I should put it on the wishlist.
General Discussion / Re: Silly notation
I think 'useless' is a bit too strong. It could be better, though, and (pace Rob den Heijer) in the case of userdefined key signatures it probably is useless. If it just changed notes which are enharmonic to a note in the keysignature (irrespective of sharpness or flatness) and NOTHING ELSE then it would be a lot more useful than it is and userdefined key signatures would give users a degree of control which they lack at the moment.

But at the very least, change the documentation.
General Discussion / Re: Silly notation
Ah, I see. In that case, the documentation is misleading; it says that notes enharmonic to notes in the key signature are changed to match them. Clearly this is not correct for user-defined signatures, and this needs stating. Might it be best to bar the Audit Enharmonic altogether when the key signature is user-defined?
General Discussion / Re: Silly notation
To get back to enharmonics: I read in a MIDI file in G minor and it produced Gb instead of F# throughout.  Now I thought the Audit Enharmonics would handle that, but of course it didn't; G minor is a flat key so it kept flats. So I changed the key signature to a user defined Bb, Eb, F# thinking that it would recognise the Gb as enharmonic to F# in the signature and change them all. It did. It also changed every Bb to A#!!! Is this a bug, or is it supposed to do this, or what?