Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Messages

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

Messages - Joseph Roberts

51
General Discussion / Re: Boxmarks Questions
Thank you, Lawrie. 

That clears it perfectly now.  I'll recommend downloading and installing the 'pardypack' and will use "MusikDingsSans.ttf" now in scores instead of Boxmark2.

Last question (I hope) about the pardypack:  

   ...  You showed the direct URL for the pardypack in an earlier message here in the forum.

   ...  How can someone navigate to it from the NWC home's Site Map?

Again, pardon me if I'm dense but I couldn't find it on the Site Map nor through a search.

Cheers,

Joe



52
General Discussion / Re: Boxmarks Questions
Thank you, William -- that's reassuring.

But  _which_  font, of the four listed, follows the same character allocations as Boxmarks/Boxmark2?

I'm still perplexed.  Forgive me if I'm dense.

In the list of fonts given above:

>
> Fonts included are:
> ...  NWC2HiVisLP.ttf  ... "based on NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf ..."
> ...  SwingDings
> ...  MusikDingsSerif
> and
> ...  MusikDingsSans

What does "based on NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf" mean, relative to that list of four fonts?

   ...  Is it "based on" the "MusikDingsSans" font in that list above?  (There's no "NWC2" in that font's filename.) 

   ...  Or is there yet another font called "NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf" somewhere?

Same question, different wording:   Is one file named "NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf", and a separate file named "MusikDingsSans.ttf"?

- - -

Another bottom line  --  I want to specify a font as "User1" that will show notation symbols (like piano arpeggio) in a 'standard-appearing' choral/piano score, and that will also be easily found, downloaded, and installed by multiple non-techie Viewer users.

And again the question ... if those fonts are supported at the NWC site, and the symbols they contain are standard and widely used, then  _why_  aren't they simply included in the NW Composer and Viewer installs?  Why do we need to tell a choir member  --  non-techie  --  to find two files, in two parts of the NoteWorthy site, and download and install them separately?

I can guarantee you that out of a dozen installs, one member will complain about an unreadable score with all those "funny marks" in it.

Eric?  Why not just bundle them?

Whew ...  that's a lot of lines for a bottom line.  Many thanks for patience.

Joe

53
General Discussion / Re: Boxmarks Questions
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –

(snip for brevity, please see Lawrie's original message)

Fonts included are:
...  NWC2HiVisLP.ttf  ... "based on NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf ..."
...  SwingDings
...  MusikDingsSerif
and
...  MusikDingsSans

Please forgive me if this sounds like I'm pushing too hard on it  --  but really am not meaning to do so. 

Maybe I'm just clueless, but the ambiguity here:

   ... "based on NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf"  --  what does that mean?  There isn't a "NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf" font in the above list.  Or is it the same thing as the "MusikDingsSans" (without the "NWC2" in the name)?

OK, I'll stop using "Boxmark2" as a required font (currently set as User1 in the NWC scores).  Instead I'll use one of the above.

   ...  But which one?

I've got to tell NW Viewer users what to do  --  Keep It Simple, they are not technical folks  -- so they can see choral and piano scores with piano arpeggios (the wiggly vertical lines) in them.

So I'll tell them to go to the NWC site, download and install the Viewer; then at that same site go to the /uc/pardypack page, download and install the PardyPack.

Some of them will become candidates for the NW Composer.  But it's got to be Keep It Simple now for starting with the Viewer.

   ...  If the fonts are important enough to be 'supported' by NoteWorthy, then why cannot they be included in the EXE installs for both the Viewer and Composer?

   ...  Symbols like arpeggio, tremolo (on stems), glissando, portamento, turn, up/down bow, and the like aren't exactly exotic.  Why aren't they simply included in the NW Composer and Viewer installer executables?

- - -

Until then, bottom line:  Of the pardypack fonts, is there a preferred one for simple piano arpeggios -- or should I experiment with them?  And will the fonts themselves or their support as something outside to the NWC distributable be dropped or changed?

Again, I apologize if this sounds more like frustration at seeming complexity toward non-technical users, rather than sounding like just simple cluelessness here.

Joe




54
General Discussion / Re: Boxmarks Questions
Quote from: Richard Woodroffe –
Joe

Lawrie's Dings font suites (also available from the Scriptorium) do everything that Boxmarks did and more !

Lawrie's fonts are now included with the NoteWorthy distribution.

 

Sorry, I'm getting lost ...

That link lists five "Dings"-based fonts:

   ...  NWC2HiVisLP.ttf  ... "based on NWC2MusikDingsSans.ttf ..."
   ...  SwingDings
   ...  MusikDingsSerif
   ...  MusikDingsSans
   ...  ChordFontsDoSiGermanic March 2009 ... "A new supplement to the Dings font suites ..."

Are they _all_ included in the NoteWorthy distribution?

Not knowing any better way, definitely I don't want to remove the current NWC installation and then install a fresh new one, just so to find out what fonts are included.

- - -

Where is there a definitive list of fonts included with today's NWC distribution?

Is that same fonts package also included with the NoteWorthy Viewer distribution?


All I need to do is show a simple piano arpeggio in the score, e.g. as in Boxmarks or Boxmark2.

What must I tell the NoteWorthy Viewer user  --  musical, but non-techie  --  to do, to be able to see it?


Joe





55
General Discussion / Boxmarks Questions
A couple of questions about using the fonts:  Boxmarks and Boxmark2.

   ...  The Scriptorium shows Boxmark2 is still a Beta release.  Are there any further developments pending (especially any that would change existing character allocations)?

   ...  Mostly addressed to Eric:  Any chance of getting Boxmark2 (or Boxmarks) included with the NWC package?

If I understand it properly (maybe don't), in order to use Boxmark2 (or Boxmarks) it's an extra step for NWC or NW Viewer users to go to a second web site.  They can't have either font as part of the download/install from the NoteWorthy home site. 

So somewhere in the NWC music file, say in the Info field, a note needs to included -- go get a separate file, from a separate web site, and know how to install a TTF file.  Otherwise you'll have some strange-looking characters in your music score.

That seems like a lot of overhead, when you've got to get the score to multiple readers.

Couldn't/shouldn't either of those fonts be included in the NWC distribution?

Please forgive me if one or the other is already there included with NWC --  I don't recall when I installed them, perhaps years ago.

Many thanks for ideas,

Joe

56
General Discussion / Re: Special Endings with Lyrics
Quote from: Richard Woodroffe –
Well Joe,

I'm with Rick on this one. Underscores always have been the way to go and I don't regard them as a workaround either.

No problem, I've been using underscores steadily and happily.  Was just curious as to whether there's an alternative way that's built into the notes flow.

Underscores make perfect sense for padding lyric syllables in some cases, for example:

   ...  A series of notes.  Two verses of lyrics.
   ...  One verse's lyrics sing the series of notes on separate syllables.
   ...  The other verse's lyrics carry a single syllable across several of the notes.
   ...  There are no slurs.

Underscore padding seems straightforward and logical there.

But it would seem to be a different matter altogether where:

   ...  A "Master Repeat" ends the note flow of "verse one" in playback and sends the note flow back to a point in the score where "verse two" starts. 

There the notes follow the Repeat instruction perfectly, but the lyrics don't. 

It would seem to make logical sense to begin the "verse two" lyrics at that same point in the score, together with the notes:

   ...  rather than at some other point in the score which has nothing to do with the "Master Repeat" flow,

   ...  and having to pad lyrics with underscores to get them back in 'sync' with the notes.


Just two cents' worth of observation.

Again, it works and isn't hard to implement (regardless of the logic) and that's what counts. 

Also there's a case to be made for not changing anything now in that area, as it might really confound lyrics flow when playing back older scores.

Many thanks again for the replies and insights.  Cheers,

Joe


57
General Discussion / Re: Special Endings with Lyrics
Quote from: Rick G. –
Lyric 2 should be:

Hi Rick,

Thank you for the speedy response.

Yes, I know I can pad the lyrics with underscores -- that's what I've been doing with 'real' scores.

I'm wondering if there's another solution inside the editor besides padding the lyric text with underscores.  In the real world, shouldn't the lyrics simply work with repeats, as the notes do?

If underscores are a workaround for an issue that is going to be fixed someday, then 'old' scores with padding might not track in that next release.

Any more insights?

Joe

58
General Discussion / Special Endings with Lyrics
Need some help here ...

   ...  A song -- with two verses of lyrics.
   ...  A Master Repeat -- with a first ending and a second ending.

The notes follow the repeat, no problem.  The lyrics don't.

Here's the clip:

Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposer(2.0)
|SongInfo|Title:"Lyrics Test"|Author:"Joe"|Lyricist:""|Copyright1:""|Copyright2:""
|PgSetup|StaffSize:16|Zoom:4|TitlePage:Y|JustifyVertically:Y|ExtendLastSystem:N|DurationPadding:Y|PageNumbers:0|StaffLabels:None|BarNumbers:None|StartingBar:1
|Font|Style:Staff Italic|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:10|Bold:Y|Italic:Y|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:Staff Bold|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:Y|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:Staff Lyric|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:7|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:Page Title Text|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:24|Bold:Y|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:Page Text|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:12|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:Page Small Text|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:User 1|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:User 2|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:User 3|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:User 4|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:User 5|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|Font|Style:User 6|Typeface:"Times New Roman"|Size:8|Bold:N|Italic:N|CharSet:0
|PgMargins|Left:1.27|Top:1.27|Right:1.27|Bottom:1.27|Mirror:N
|AddStaff|Name:"Staff"|Group:"Standard"
|StaffProperties|EndingBar:Section Close|Visible:Y|BoundaryTop:12|BoundaryBottom:24|Lines:5|Style:Standard|Layer:N|Color:Default
|StaffProperties|Muted:N|Volume:127|StereoPan:64|Device:0|Channel:1
|StaffInstrument|Trans:0|DynVel:10,30,45,60,75,92,108,127
|Lyrics|Placement:Bottom|Align:Standard Rules|Offset:0
|Lyric1|Text:"Now\r\nHere is the first verse.\r\n"
|Lyric2|Text:"Here\'s the sec-ond verse.\r\n"
|Clef|Type:Treble
|TimeSig|Signature:Common
|Tempo|Tempo:100|Pos:8
|Rest|Dur:Half
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:-2
|Bar|Style:MasterRepeatOpen
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-6
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-4
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-5
|Bar
|Ending|Endings:1
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:-2
|Rest|Dur:4th
|Bar|Style:MasterRepeatClose
|Ending|Endings:2
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:-6
|Rest|Dur:4th
!NoteWorthyComposer-End

- - -

What am I missing?  Many thanks for the help,

Joe


59
General Discussion / Re: Time for a smile...
Chuckling here -- that article is a hoot.  It belongs near the pinnacle of Instrument Jokes.

Probably heard already many times, but appropriate here ...

Sir Thomas Beecham's remark:

... "Never look at the trombones.  It only encourages them."


Still chuckling away,

Joe

61
General Discussion / Re: 'Page Break' in Printing
Many thanks for the inputs.  I had already tried the hidden rests, along with much fiddling with fonts and margins. 

Unfortunately it's a multiple-staff piece that has to go along with some other similar pieces (so they all need to look fairly alike).  Finally I just wound up living without the printed page break.

Again, many thanks -- I appreciate the ideas and suggestions.

Cheers,

Joe



62
General Discussion / 'Page Break' in Printing

Does anyone know how to create a page break when printing?

A score here needs to start a given bar/measure at the top of the next page when it's sent to the printer.

The Editor's "Force System Break (Top Staff only)" works as expected -- it forces the break in the flow and begins the next bar/measure at the left margin.

But what we need is to get that bar/measure to begin on a new page in the printout.

I've tried various combinations of "Force System Break", including inserting some with hidden barlines, but haven't found a solution.

It isn't an issue in the NWC Editor or Viewer.  The need is to get a physical page break to a new sheet of paper when printing to paper.

Any way to accomplish this?

I'm most grateful for all ideas ...

Joe

63
General Discussion / Re: buying advice?
An excerpt from Bill's post:

> Merlin_Audigy actually sounds good nearly everywhere.
> Not great - it's no GPO - but at least good.

The GPO question pops up from time to time.  John White had explored it a year ago.  Here Bill mentions it in a Merlin soundbank comparison, settling on the Merlin.

GPO seems to have issues ...

...  Is it 'good' enough to explore beyond soundbanks?

...  How difficult is it to set up to work with NWC?  Now there are all the Windows versions:  Windows 7, 64/32, Vista, XP, 2000.  (Windows 2000 is still here, solid and reliable.)

...  Not looking for a step-by-step procedure, but what are the main pitfalls or 'stoppers'?

Given the GPO cost, if it finally happens to work in NWC:

...  Does it sound significantly more 'real' in playback, in comparison with Merlin Vienna, Airfont 340, or the other 'big' banks?

...  Even if it might be more 'real' for orchestral instruments, what does it add, if anything, for choral works?

I know there's no absolute measurement  --  just looking for ideas and suggestions.

Are there any MP3s that one can find that were made with NWC and GPO?

Bill gave a detailed account of options, trials and experience, and settled on a Merlin soundbank (i.e., non-GPO) solution.

If GPO can be made to work inside NWC  --  is it worth the GPO cost and effort?

Joe


64
General Discussion / Re: Just wondering
About horn notation ...

(Please accept my apology for this long post.)

Here are excerpts from a book touching on Horns' development and notation.

Source:  Hamilton Clarke's 'Manual of Orchestration' (1895).

He gives many examples of horn scores, and suggests ways of writing solo passages and harmonies.

Then he spices them with his personal views on just about everything.  It's a delightfully peppery book, a pleasure to read.


(Quotes from his book):

...
   The horn, or more strictly speaking, the French horn, is the most genial of all instruments, provided, of course, that your band contains two.  Four horns are generally to be found in all orchestras of any consequence.  One horn in a band suggests a condition of melancholy servitude.
...
   Its tones are full of passion, pathos, and solemnity.  The scores of Weber, Gounod, and Mendelssohn will afford numerous illustrations of the supreme qualities of this gorgeous instrument.  Beethoven uses it too recklessly in many cases, seemingly implying that practically he had very little knowledge of the instrument; while Rossini frequently treats them like buffoons.
...
   On the French horn proper, or as the Germans call it, the Wald-horn, or "horn of the woods", there are neither valves, ventils, pistons, nor cylinders.  Modern use has, however, introduced upon horns all these contrivances in one form or another.
...
   Regarding the horn as the instrument it is in its original form, and not as the mere "beast of burden" that latter usage has made it, the introduction of these artificial appliances is to be received as in some respects a very lamentable innovation.  For, whereas the real French horn, revealed in every different key, according to the "crook" used, distinct and individual beauties, the use of these valves and pistons has resulted in the almost exclusive employment of the 'horn in F', by all average horn-players.  They play music written for horns in C, D, E flat, and E, in a horn crooked in F, transposing, and trusting to guess-work as they go on.  This inflicts great injustice on composers, for if one writes a passage for the horn in C, and designs that the tone of the C horn shall be heard in it, perhaps including some of its finest veiled sounds, or closed notes; it is only just that one should enjoy the common right of hearing one's design carried out.  But the horn-player sits still, and complacently performs it on the F horn.
   It is clearly discerned that by this arrangement some of the most noble qualities of this grandest of the brass instruments are crippled, and others totally lost.  Yet, if a horn-player desires to perform a solo more fit for the flute, let him have his valves; but it is not horn-playing.
...

   (... Then he wraps it up like this:)

A lamentable perversion of the fine qualities of the horn is constantly perpetrated in modern light music, especially in waltzes, and other dances, by using it in thus in the accompaniment:

   (... Here he shows a 3/4 waltz score where the horns play the "pah-pah" in the "oom-pah-pah".)

The superb tone of the instrument is sputtered away in these jerky utterances, and the performer is sadly fatigued.  But in military music, the degradation of the horn reaches a climax, when a man has to waddle through the streets trying to steady a mouthpiece to his lips, which, when seated quietly in the orchestra, he can never control with absolute certainty.  For mere parade purposes, it is a ridiculous waste of delicate material to make use of either oboes, bassoons, or horns.  To play upon violins at the head of a regiment would not be much more absurd.
...

(End of quotes)

Moral for today:  study Gounod, not Beethoven; don't write for 'Horn in F'; beware of horns in 3/4; and make sure that horn players always sit down and don't go marching around.

Here's to the Horn!

Joe



65
General Discussion / Re: buying advice?
Bill wrote:

> I hope this may be useful to somebody.

It was extremely helpful in several areas -- many thanks for describing your experience with your setup.

I've been considering Miroslav Philharmonik for a week and wondering whether to take the chance.  Time to consider it a lot longer.

GPO is always a perennial contender with other NWC folks having discussed it for some time.  Maybe it's a route to explore next, beyond soundfonts, although setup issues seem to exist.  Your description was most helpful.

For soundfonts, Merlin_Audigy and Merlin Symphony both 'sound' (no pun meant) like they're worth exploring.  Here, Merlin Vienna is already available and quite good. 

Humble opinion, for orchestral sounds, the challenge is to get lush strings and full-throated (not tinny) brass.  Here at least, I've yet to find a string or brass font that's really, really good.

And then there's Choir Aahs ...   ah, well.  What can one expect?

It was a most enlightening account, Bill.  I learned a lot from your experience.  Many thanks for going into the details.

Joe

66
General Discussion / Re: buying advice?
Hi Bill,

Lawrie already covered the possibilities, but this also comes to mind.

Please forgive me is this is too obvious.

Is the laptop configuration necessary?

Would you want to consider a separate desktop unit, optimized for audio?  It could easily accept the Audigy 2 and give you a superb and lasting PC audio foundation.  You could find an el-cheapo desktop solution with not too much invested, and still have the laptop for other stuff.

Not to drag it out . . .   Just an example.

An "old" Pentium 4 here, 2.2Gig RAM, Audigy 2 with soundfonts.  Audio out goes to a really good amplifier and loudspeakers (audiophile ones, with clean mid/high range and a huge bass woofer -- not PC speakers).

It would take up space, but it could be a dedicated sound setup for using and enjoying NoteWorthy.  You'd still have the laptop for everything else.

Hoping it's a help,

Joe

67
General Discussion / Re: Playback
FerWotIt'sWorth ...

There are some Web forums talking about "Oracle VM Virtual Box" which seems to allow a Windows 7 host to run another OS as a guest.  Probably best to just Google that term and pick and choose from the links.

Can't budge from Windows 2000 here, to avoid such issues as mentioned in this thread and elsewhere.  It's hard to call Win2K "obsolescent" when it always runs rock-solid, and handles the NWC apps, Yamaha S-YXG50, likes the Audigy 2 drivers with the card's soundbanks, Vienna Studio, Audacity, etc  . . .  and is happy with other apps than run without a hiccup.



Joe
68
General Discussion / Re: NWC Viewer 2.5 preview2
Quote from: llucyy –
Try this out. It's a lot better than the old one.

It's a beautiful, powerful music player and viewer. 

Humble opinion, it is probably one of the most valuable pieces of software for music lovers on the Web.

Newcomers to music notation and playback can try it easily: 

   ...  Download the NoteWorthy Viewer (freeware) on this site, and install it.

   ...  Then go to the NoteWorthy Scriptorium.  You'll find the link.  There, you'll find hundreds of music files.  They can be freely downloaded, played and enjoyed.

It's remarkable how powerful the NoteWorthy Composer software is, compared to other music software. 

I've used several other "big" music notation/playback programs.  By far, NoteWorthy has the best screens and "human interface".  It takes the fewest mouse clicks to get a piece of music notated and heard.

Joe

70
General Discussion / Re: read only
Hi Carl,

Another suggestion ...

If you aren't intending to modify the file, then why not just open it in the Viewer?  No danger then of getting a 'file modified' prompt.

...  (In Composer, when simply viewing "File > Info" to read about the music and author, I sometimes forget and click "OK" instead of "Cancel").

...  Or do you also need to see some of the Composer's notation elements that aren't shown in the Viewer?

Joe



71
Announcements / Re: NoteWorthy Composer 2.1 Now Available
Hi Steven,

Welcome to the NoteWorthy community. 

Lawrie described the ordering options.  You might also like to consider the community of NoteWorthy users you'll have available for you.

Humble opinion  ...  the ideas, resources and help you'll find for this software are the finest of any music notation software anywhere. 

You have this community here in this public forum, and also in another one that's available for registered users which you'll be able to join after you get your registration.

There's also the NoteWorthy 'Scriptorium' site which has an excellent library of NoteWorthy scores, with plenty of examples showing how to get the best from the software.

Cheers,

Joe



72
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
The thread can R.I.P., but a personal reference can't go unaddressed.

Snip below, please see fitzclan's full message.

Quote from: fitzclan –
It seems to me that you are not willing to purchase the much higher priced Sibelius program so that your friends can benefit from their free player replete with pause.

Respectfully:

It isn't about doing something for 'friends'.

This area has over 200 persons in four major chorales in performance and rehearsal with NoteWorthy nowhere in sight. 

The points made have been about a Viewer limitation that prevents Composer's getting even a foot into the door, in a setting where it could shine. 

Please read the posts from others, not from me, who have tried workarounds.

The thread has stayed on-topic.  If the Viewer can't be used in a coordinated way in a group of people for serious score review and training, there is no opportunity for Composer to originate scores within that group.

Joe



73
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Occasionally I've corresponded with a local person who is a choral director and composer.  Last week in e-mail he mentioned that a new, all-male chorale is being formed in our area.  It'll be directed not by him, but by a different person whom I know only slightly.

So sometime soon we'll have a new season of music, and those chaps won't be recruited at bus stops.  They're coming in from other choral ensembles if their schedules and inclinations allow them a new gig.  Even though there's only one director, and maybe an accompanist, there will be an interflow of experience, values, and ideas.

There are some excellent TTBB scores in the NoteWorthy Scriptorium.  What a wealth of music is there for them, if it were suggested.

I think it indicates that the 'software market' is not all that 'mature'.

R.I.P. from here.

Joe


74
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Snip below, please see fitzclan's original messge.
Quote
...perhaps other software companies offer more features with their free player. The problem is that you cannot compose music that will play on their free player without purchasing the high priced software program. That is quite a glitch to overcome in my estimation. NWC is priced so moderately in comparison that I think that anyone who is serious about what they do musically should break out the wallet and splurge...But not too much! They will be glad they did. Problem solved!

Let me see if I can extend the logic.  It seems to go like this:

The premise:

   ...  Some persons need a notation program to notate music.  That includes music they like and use individually, and it includes music they distribute to others, e.g. for ensemble rehearsal.

   ...  Other persons need only a viewer/player to play music.  That includes music they like and use individually, and it includes music that has been distributed to them, e.g. for ensemble rehearsal.

The logical argument:

   ...  A fully functional viewer/player is relevant, and is an incentive to purchase a higher-cost notation program (as the logic goes).

   ...  But a fully functional viewer/player is not relevant, and is not an incentive to purchase a lower-cost notation program (as the logic goes).

   ...  Instead, a crippled viewer/player is an incentive to purchase that lower-cost notation program (as the logic goes), in order to have a workable viewer/player.

Is that supposed to be the logic?  If so it does not work for a group of people in ensemble.

You simply cannot tell a choir of 38 people that they must outlay cash to get a notation program to view/play scores in rehearsal, because the actual viewer/player program does not work for them.

Within the choral ensemble there are some people who also write and arrange music, for that ensemble and for others in which they are members.  The accompanist notates music for a jazz trio he heads.  The ensemble is not simply a bunch of singers, with only one director who alone uses notation software.  They are a multiple 'market' for several Composer licenses.  They interact, internally and across other ensembles.  But the one starting point, the basic one required before all else, is that the NoteWorthy Viewer must be usable by all.

And for rehearsal, simply reading a printed score while controlling a MIDI player is not an effective option.

As another NoteWorthy user mentioned, the Composer and Viewer are a music 'eco-system'.  You cannot promote one part of it by purposely crippling the other part below the level of use that's required of it.

How easy it ought to be to telephone or send an e-mail to the director or to any of several people in the ensemble, letting them know of a new NoteWorthy piece that's just been posted in the Scriptorium.

The points have already been made well above in the thread, clearly sustained and reinforced by NoteWorthy users who are ensemble members.

Please let us note that we here already use the fully-functional NoteWorthy Composer -- when is the last time we ignored our copy of the Composer, and used the Viewer for truly serious study of parts of a NoteWorthy score?  We should judge the Viewer's deficiency by first stepping into the other person's shoes.

We need a workable NoteWorthy Viewer, and if possible, a viewer plug-in to replace the one we used to have.

- - -

Here's something to chew on, not far off-topic.

These are two excerpts from a Firefox forum on Sibelius's Scorch plug-in.

Scorch works well in Internet Explorer (and in Opera), but had issues in earlier versions of Firefox.  Two users trying to get Scorch going in their Firefox posted these comments.

   "Tens of thousands of American and other university music students, plus potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of high school students taking music courses need their browsers to handle Scorch in order to use for their studies ..."

   "I teach an online music fundamentals class at a college with more than 500 hundred Scorch files embedded in my web pages."

Anyone thinking of a music viewer audience can read between those lines, including NoteWorthy.


Joe



 
75
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Quote from: Barry Graham –
Think you might be flogging a dead horse mate!

It's barely alive, and it isn't being flogged.  It's trying to be given sustenance.  If it dies, it's because NoteWorthy "Support" lets it die.

The Viewer is more like a scrawny, malnourished, pitiful colt, neglected by its owner.  It could become a proud horse for race or show.  But it's one of the most hobbled on the planet.  That's in spite of calm, clearly stated, reasoned, and obviously justified requests to its owner for its "support" that have been met entirely with stony silence from that owner. 

Yes, I've posted the longest, most-tedious messages in the thread.  But read also the messages from so many other NoteWorthy users, respected, dedicated and experienced users.

Again:  Requests have been made for more than six years in three forums.  Submissions have been made directly to the Wish List.  Not all by me.  Requests for a better Viewer have been seconded and sustained by dedicated customers, with plenty of examples and justification for why the Viewer update is needed.

In return for all that, not an ounce of action has come from NoteWorthy "support".  Not a byte of update code, not a single word of response.  Not even the courtesy of an acknowledgment from NoteWorthy "support" that the topic even exists.

This thread began in March.  Now we're at the end of July.  Again, please note the size of this thread:  more than 1400 views.  Not a single reply has been returned here from NoteWorthy. 

Any other software's so-called "support" that ignored its customers' requests through total silence would be ridiculed, and ought to be.

Sadly, after eleven years of using this software, loving it and actively promoting it in contact with persons who have represented potential licenses -- for concerts and a major archive page on the Web -- there's no more time for patience.  I've got eleven days in which to get a choral score submitted.  It's already up on the Scripto.  All I've got to do is get the director to license NWC and make the score available in the Viewer, as was outlined more than two months ago and seconded by other NWC users in this forum.

Sadly, that isn't going to happen.  Now I've got to save it in 1.75, dump it into XML, import it into Sibelius, tweak it there, and give a .sib file to the director for him to use.  Sadly, it's back to Sibelius again.  And even more sadly, the concert program won't have a note of NoteWorthy in it, and the choir will still never have seen a NoteWorthy score.

How painful it is for a previously-dedicated NoteWorthy user to have to begin sentences with "sadly".

Joe



76
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
With respect ...

VanBasco gets mentioned as a possible player for choral music exported from NWC to MIDI.

Humble opinion ...

VanBasco is not adequate for playing back choral music.  It mangles the SATB lyrics.

It allows only the choice of viewing a single lyric track, or viewing all lyric tracks combined.  It's done via a single checkbox:  "Allow Multiple Lyric Tracks".

With the box not checked, only one lyric track can be seen.  Checked, it combines all lyric tracks in a jumbled series on the screen (not each voice, side-by-side).

- - -

Here are two examples.


(1) The song's actual lyrics:

   Angel of Peace,
   thou hast wandered too long,
   Spread thy white wings,
   ah, to the sunshine of love,
   to the sunshine of love.
   Come while our voices
   are blended in song.

VanBasco displays all four voices' lyrics:

   An An An An gel gel gel gel of of of of
   Peace, Peace, Peace, Peace,
   thou thou thou thou hast hast hast hast
   wandwandwandwandered ered ered ered
   too too too too long, long, long, long,
   Spread Spread Spread Spread thy thy thy thy
   white white white white wings, wings, wings, wings,
   ah, ah, ah, Spread thy white wings to to to to
   the the the the sunsunsunsun shine shine shine shine
   of of of of love, love, love, love, of of of of
   love.
   Come while our Come voices while are our
   blendvoiced es in song, are blendCome, ed in
   Come song, while our voices are come,
   blendcome, come, ed in song.


- - - -

(2)  Mendelssohn's Elijah, the opening chorus.

Directly from the NWC Scriptorium.


The lyrics passage:

   Help, Lord!  Help, Lord!
   Help, Lord!  wilt thou quite destroy us?
   The harvest now is over,
   the summer days are gone,
   and yet no power cometh to help us,
   and yet no power cometh to help us.


VanBasco displays it:

   Help, Help, Help, Help, Lord! Lord! Lord! Lord!
   Help, Help, Help, Help, Lord! Lord! Lord! Lord!
   Help, Help, Help, Help, Lord! Lord! Lord! Lord!
   wilt wilt wilt wilt thou thou thou thou
   quite quite quite quite dedededestroy stroy stroy stroy
   us? us? us? us? ...
   and yet now power cometh to help and yet us,
   no power cometh The to help harand vest us.
   now yet is no opower, er the sumcommer days

- - -

VanBasco is _not_ an adequate tool for playing back choral works, nor for any work with lyrics on multiple tracks.  It mangles even a simple vocal duet.

Plus -- not the same issue, but a related one and _vital_ to choral work.  If one intends to export from NWC to MIDI, there's the longstanding issue:

   ...  NWC's export to MIDI does not honor fermatas and breathmarks. 

NWC 'Support' mentioned more than six years ago that that's because those notation elements are not part of the MIDI spec.  But they could be simulated through MPC-Tempo in a smart export.  And with nothing done so far by NWC after so many requests, a dedicated NWC enthusiast, Rick, developed an external tool to do the job. 

But it requires the NWC user -- say, the choral director who has just obtained NWC -- to know about and to run a separate tool, external to the NoteWorthy software he paid for.

That's a MIDI export issue.  But it exists in choral works if an external MIDI player, unrelated to NWC, is to be used for playback.

Tempo is not an issue at all, if one simply uses the NW Viewer for the playback.

If you put those two issues together -- mangled lyrics, and missing tempo variances  --  going out to MIDI is not the best solution.

Going out to a playback medium that mangles choral lyrics, after having to run an external tool to even get there in the first place -- is not the best solution.

- - -

Really, when all is said, the preferred way to playback NWC choral scores would be in a properly-working NW Viewer.

Nothing could be more direct.  And it would be an "all-NoteWorthy" piece of music. 

   ...  The choral director notates it in the NW Composer, and the choral members receive and rehearse it in the NW Viewer.

   ...  The choral staves -- notes, dynamics, tempo, lyrics -- are exactly as the choral director has scored them.  All the visual and audio information is there.

And if there have to be 'tweaks' -- which there likely will be, during rehearsals -- the notation/distribution process is straightforward.

- - -

The principal issue -- so longstanding now  --  is the Viewer's inability to stop and restart at a designated bar in the score.

   ...  Other items have been raised in the thread, valuable for consideration for a future NW Viewer release.

   ...  But that one issue -- the Viewer's primitive "Stop/Play" control -- is the roadblock to using the Viewer as a distribution medium.

- - -

Stark words coming.

As one NWC user pointed out in the thread, external workarounds for the Viewer's deficiency, with the continuing total silence from NoteWorthy 'Support', are more than hard to take.  He mentioned he's considering getting "outta here" for those reasons.  And he is not the only one.

Eric, perhaps you have no idea how embarrassing it is to demonstrate NWC music to a serious prospect using the Viewer.  Note again that the Viewer will be the distribution medium.  The issues are obvious.  Stopping the playback mid-way to discuss a score item.  Taking a question from the listener.  Then getting redfaced when having to start all over again at the beginning, and not being able to review or replay what was just discussed.  The question is always there, and it is always the same:  "Do you have to start it all over every time?"  And the answer is always, Yes.  It is humiliating.  It leaves the impression of cheapness.  And a tinge of suspicion about what might also be primitive and unusable in the NW Composer, which one is then only just beginning to consider.  It's a different experience from what seasoned NW users have come to gain, over time.  It is a first impression that is deeply negative.  At its best, it's laughable.  But it goes nowhere for NoteWorthy.  Stark words, but it is past high time that they were heeded.

One longs to show, play and discuss 'live' concert performance of music made with the brilliant NW Composer, to persons who only know other 'high-end' notation software.  But the Viewer makes it a non-starter.

Stark words.  But requests have been posted here.  (Note the size of this thread.)  Requests were posted going back six years in the two other privately-hosted forums.  And requests have been entered into the NWC "Wish List".  It has all been one-way requesting.  The points have all been made, and they are vital.  Absolutely nothing has come back on this subject.  Not a byte of updated Viewer code, and not a word of support.


Joe

77
General Discussion / Re: Eventide
Hi Nigel,

Here's looking forward to hearing and discussing the work ...

One question that comes immediately to mind is -- for String Ensemble, why the transpositions to 'minus-2'?

Joe
78
General Discussion / Re: Why we use NoteWorthy
As a kid I marched in a band, with the classic 'silver clip' to hold the sheets of music on the clarinet.  Trouble was, juggling the sheets to get to the next piece of music, while looking ahead, trying to keep in formation, with a breeze blowing.

For the timpanist in the video, too bad he's not using NoteWorthy.  It would work beautifully for orchestra rehearsals -- just tap F5 or F6 with his mallet and he's on his way.

(OT)  There's also the classic book/scroll video:

   ...youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZek


Joe

79
General Discussion / Re: Rest plus note as chord, without layering
After working with that issue many time in choral works ...   Layering is much easier. 

It's so much more natural, because you can simply score as you see and hear the notes.  You don't need to worry about which notes need to be scored after first assigning ties.  Slurs are more easy to control.  What was more complicated in a single staff, has become much easier when NWC incorporated layering.

Scoring a TTBB can be a lot easier by using layering.  Also, the separate staffs give you the opportunity for getting a more balanced 'soundscape', where the four voices can be spread left-to-right for spatial effect, while still keeping the visual TTBB notation.

So the suggestion would be ...  if you can do it with layering, you might be able to do it more quickly, and you'll have a more easily editable score whenever you feel the need to revise it.

Hoping it's helpful information.

Joe



80
General Discussion / Re: Sample "moonlite.nwc"
Way back when, years ago ... my wife and I played this work during our first evening with the NWC demo.  It was one of the main reasons why we decided to get the NoteWorthy license.  The passion in this notation is amazing. 

Two other existing programs we'd tried got set aside, and we went with NoteWorthy -- version 1.55a, back in January 1999.

It's good to see it in this thread and to discover it again in the Samples folder.  It's like seeing an old friend.

Joe

81
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
... (snip for brevity, please see Bill's post)

Quote from: Bill Denholm –

Any file prepared with any version of nwc can be played on the ‘Viewer’, so we live in hope that the NWC team will be able to modify the “Viewer’ in at least 2 ways:
•   to allow stop and start and repetition of passages,
•   to provide a slider for tempo change  and perhaps:
•   .to activate some of the improvement now incorporated into NWC2.1.

Please Eric, think of the special needs of your potential thousands of choristers who are not interested in notation, but would love a ”you beaut” Viewer!

Bill

- - -

The snips to Bill's message are for brevity only, so please see his full message. 

One can only have a hope that Eric will consider Bill's full description of what's needed.

Here is another real-life situation.

Here is another case where NWC belongs in the picture, and where it could be the central part of it.  But isn't.  Facetiously stated, but sadly, brand "S" is the sole notation vehicle.

We have four strong non-church chorales in our area.  There are probably 200 singers in them.  They do everything, just counting recent concerts, from the Durufle Requiem and intense Bach chorales, to Gilbert and Sullivan, Rutter, and Sondheim stuff.

The individual singers aren't isolated inside each chorale group.  They alternate among the other groups over the course of a year's concert schedule, as well as singing in church choirs.  They also have personal and musical 'lives', a few singing solo, some teaching.

In other words, it's an active music schedule with a lot of notating, arranging, rehearsing, and performing going on. 

In the group I'm most familiar with, several people are also composers and arrangers.  The group performs a 'local composers' concert once a year.  There are several score notators, printers and "distributors" within the ensemble, besides being singers.

Also the accompanist -- who is very strong -- has a separate piano trio who perform at clubs in the area. 

In other words, that one 'chorale' group it isn't just a bunch of people in a box where one person hands out a printed score and people sing from it.  It's a dynamic, interactive group of people with some composers, arrangers and notators within it.  And as such, they migrate into other groups they share in the same area.  Migration isn't just bodies.  It's ideas and feelings for what they want to do, and for what works 'best' to get music performed on tight schedules.

It's so different from the past, simple choir group where one person handed out an SATB hymn, and everybody sang it on Sunday morning after one Wednesday night rehearsal.  Time has moved onward, miles from that point.

Today, if NWC were the powerful, accepted notation and playback vehicle in the current chorale environment:

...  There would be several hundred singers who were aware of NWC, in major concerts, three times a year. 

...  And of those singers, about half a dozen (my guess) would be serious composers / arrangers, candidates for licensing NWC (Composer) for their own composition and arranging work.

...  And then their work would promulgate further through their choral organizations.


About NWC (Composer) licensing:

...  NWC licensing would come because of its total package -- Composer / Viewer combination -- being the accepted standard for natural ease-of-use throughout the choral organization. 

...  That means, of course,  adoption and feedback from the singers.

...  There must be a natural, native, good feeling of using the Viewer for score rehearsal on the part of the large majority of chorale singers.

...  Easy, intuitive interface.

...  That feedback is crucial to acceptance of NWC (Composer) as the notation vehicle.

_That_ is the root of satisfaction with NoteWorthy Composer.

How easy it would be to show the choral director the resources on the Scriptorium.  So much is already done there, waiting for rehearsal and performance.

And how attractive it would be for the ensemble directors to adopt a tool that costs so much less than the USD $599 thing they're faced with now.  And beyond each ensemble's one director, the emerging composers and arrangers within that group.

This could be going so well for NWC.  Gosh, only if something had happened two or three years ago.  The only weak link in Noteworthy is the Viewer's unsuitability for playback. 

It isn't easy to put such harsh words into a forum for software one loves and respects. 

It will take some time, but with a Viewer that works, there's a possibility of turning the corner with each new concert season.

Joe

82
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Seconded here.  Replay from the insertion point works fine here too.

The Composer's controls seem intuitive and clear.

It seems natural to "point, click" at a bar where one wants to start playback. 

Then, clicking on "Stop" and on "Play", to begin again at that point also feels natural.

Otherwise, "point, click" on any other spot, or just tap the Home key, sets a new place to begin.

- - -

I'm reluctant to poke a nose further into this, but earlier in the thread, one reason for not updating the Viewer's flow control was the suggested coding complexity.  Just a note on this.

The current Composer has its Viewer mode.  'Replay', as discussed generally in the thread, exists in the Composer when it's in its Viewer mode.

Possibly the respective Composer and Viewer flow control code are greatly different.  Possibly they're buried deep into their kernels, with the Composer's Viewer mode 'way up in a user interface shell, suggesting a heavy rewrite for getting flow control in to the actual Viewer.  Or more happily, perhaps there's some modularity in both code to allow some of the Composer's flow control code to be a 'lift' for the Viewer.

Only the Programmer knows and decides, but one just hopes it won't be too tough.  It will be warmly welcomed when done.

Joe

83
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
As another NWC user has so aptly pointed out, the Composer/Viewer combination ought to be seen as a music 'eco-system'.

We have an acquaintance who teaches piano.  Her specialty is Russian music, and she teaches both in English and Russian.

Besides using stock piano method books, she sends students home with customized, fresh exercises to practice.  Each set of exercises is tailored to each student's present need.

I'd love to turn her on to NW Composer.  But it's got to give her value beyond notating and printing scores.  Right now her manual scoring is fluent, fast, and easy to read.  A notation and printing tool alone is of minimal value.

What she needs is an audio/visual playback tool in which her students, at home between lessons, will see, hear, and "get" what the teacher wants, through selective repetition and practice.

Unfortunately the weak Viewer can't handle her students' rehearsal needs.

We've shown and used the NWC (Composer) with her for years in our home, and the Viewer in hers.  She's well aware of what each can do, compared to her needs.

She'd be an NWC (Composer) licensee now if the Viewer would let her do her job.  And her reputation as an effective teaching professional would get a boost.  But there's no incentive for her to license NWC.  An NWC (Composer) license is out of the picture entirely because the inadequate Viewer cripples the package.

Her example is just one more, among others.


Joe



84
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Quote from: MusicJohn –
   Although I too would like the NWC Player/Viewer to do all the things Richard lists, and especially be able to pause and then continue, nevertheless we must surely admit that with the right Midi-playing software - Midisoft's Session, for instance (which is what I normally use), or my friend Chris Hills's MidiPlay (see HaitchTeeTeePeeColonSlashSlash freespace.virgin.net/chris.crhills/midiplay/index.html) - you can do all these things with a Midi File (and what is more the two I name show you the full score and let you select exactly where in it you want to start from)!

   And it's no real problem to write an NWC File so that things like fermatas, and rest-less pauses between sections, actually play as they should in the Midi version.  A combination of invisible commands and layering allows you do do almost anything you want so that a score both looks and plays OK.

Respectfully ...

What about the considerable amount of NWC files that already are up on the Scriptorium?  The Scriptorium could be a major incentive for choral directors to explore NWC.

Would it be reasonable to expect a music director, coming newly into NWC, to have to do those changes to downloaded files before going out to MIDI?

One might instead suggest that NWC ought to consider making it painless to go out to MIDI, if that became necessary.  'Painless', that is, in the context of a choral director who, by musical nature and past experience with other software, would like to see a fermata work like a fermata, and whose time schedule is already hard enough to manage.

Quote
   Incidentally, in my very considerable experience it is a BAD THING to read the score on the screen; much, much better to read your printed score while listening to the File play-back.  That way you get used to doing what you will in the Concert, AND you can act upon all the scribbled comments you pencilled into the score to remind you how your Leader wanted you to sing it!

Nothing so far in the suggestions for improving the Viewer's playback precludes the user from doing that.  From another viewpoint, if only hearing (and not viewing) the music in the Viewer, and if there's a penciled-in note in the printed score from a previous rehearsal, then it might be helpful for the Viewer to have a Pause/Resume control over that passage, to reflect on that written instruction.


Joe
85
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Randy,

Without exception:

... Nothing has been directed toward you or anyone else personally.

... Nothing has been directed toward your or anyone else's viewpoint.

... Not a word.

Without exception:

... Everything has been specifically on-topic, without getting personal.


Namely:

... Making NoteWorthy Composer and Viewer, in their respective roles, a complete vehicle for contemporary choral use, including score notation, revision, and playback for rehearsal.

... The difficulty in doing that today is the Viewer's inability to playback a specific segment of the music score, for rehearsal.

... Bypassing the Viewer, e.g. going to MIDI via an external, non-NWC tool, and playing back in Van Basco (in which multiple lyric channels get munged) is not an option.

Advantage:

... Excellent choral music exists in the Scriptorium.  Convincing a choral director to begin using NW (Composer and Viewer in their respective roles) would be easy -- if it worked for that choral application.  With the Viewer issue, it does not work, yet.

... As pointed out previously, some chorale members also compose, arrange, and notate their own and other choral works.  They are not only singers in the one group.  They are candidates for NWC (Composer) licensing.  Word travels.  Familiarity helps.  But the total NoteWorthy combination (Composer and Viewer, in their respective roles) must work together for choral application.  With the Viewer issue, it does not work, yet.

Viewing and hearing the notes together in real time is simply the right way to learn and rehearse music.  A total NoteWorthy combination would be the way to go.  MIDI is a dull second.

Or to stretch, trying to accommodate other viewpoints:  Nothing in that total NoteWorthy combination prevents a user from using only the printed score, or rehearsing it with a piano.  It's simply the Viewer playback that is the issue.


- - -

Here is a present example for illustration.

The chorale has just concluded a sparkling three-concert series of G&S excerpts, done in concert (i.e., not staged).  They were successes.  Standing ovations, cheering, and handshakes and laughter (and some hugs) among chorale and audience members in the lobby, after the concert.  That was two months ago.

Now they preparing for a Fall concert.  Usually that concert is on a serious level.

The audience has many 'regular' members.  Attendance can be drawn by, and many of the chorale are already 'psyched' for, a work by Sullivan on that concert program.  A 'serious' work.  Perhaps a couple of them.

Here's a suggested work.

...  It's Sullivan's "The Long Day Closes", perhaps his most-sung serious choral work of all he composed (not including hymns).

...  It has fermatas over notes and rests.  Those fermatas have time values (i.e. are non-zero) in the NWC version of the work.

...  One such pause -- a rest with a long-timed fermata -- comes before the final verse.

...  The first verse has already been serious enough, but now the final verse is coming on, heavy-duty:

        Go to thy dreamless bed
        Where grief reposes.
        Thy book of toil is read.
        The long day closes.

...  That rest with the fermata is there purely for dramatic effect.  It gives time for the audience to reflect on the first verse, to 'feel' that something is coming, and to maybe get a bit prepared emotionally (and the singers too) for what follows.

...  Throughout the piece there are both notes and rests with timed fermatas like that.  They aren't there to allow the tenors to gulp air before turning blue.  They're there entirely for dramatic effect.  That effect will be revised and tweaked by the director.  But it's there to begin with.

The song is already up on the Scriptorium, notated SATB.  If NWC were to become the notation/playback vehicle, much of the director's work would already be done for him.  Notated score, all SATB lyrics, suggested dynamics and tempi -- a starting point.

How easy it should be, then, to suggest that he get NWC (Composer) and try it for his Fall concert.


Now the point of the example.


If it's done in his existing Sibelius, the steps are:

   1.  Director:  Notate and revise it as desired.

   2.  Director:  Distribute the printed score and .SIB file.

   3.  SATB, each person:  Rehearse it as needed, with the player.


If NWC (Composer and Viewer) were offered, please outline the steps.

   1.  Director:  Download and revise it as desired.

   2.  Director:  Distribute the printed score and .NWC file.

   3.  SATB, each person:  ...


Again, all the effort has been to remain on-topic. 

It is about the Viewer, its potential role in ensemble rehearsal, and how that can assist acceptance and licensing of Composer.


Joe



86
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members

I'll try to explain it succinctly, but it will be a long post.

If it gets truncated for a length restriction, I'll repost it in segments.

The software user context is not a random population of music listeners, scattered around the globe.  It is a focused group of three dozen to five dozen people, each of whom is a potential user of NW Viewer, and some of whom can migrate to licensees of NWC (Composer).

Picture a music director of a large choral group. 

Together with distributing printed paper scores, he distributes the audible music as a PC file for section leaders and for 'permanent' and key choir members to learn from.  He distributes both visual and aural media because with their having both the score and sound, they can learn effectively at home. 

Why at home?  Because those members of a good ensemble have other schedule commitments during the four months it takes to put together a concert.  They teach, coach, sing in other ensembles, and have separate lives between physical rehearsals.  He's distributing eight or ten choral works to them in a kind of "pre-rehearsal" package -- in the printed score and audible music files -- for section leaders and other key members to learn from, and for section leaders to feedback to him as the program takes shape.

Why do it that way?  Because, besides schedule conflicts, actual ensemble and section physical rehearsals cost money, getting the choir and accompanist all together.  They should not have to begin the first rehearsal "cold", if that can be avoided.  If they can attend the first rehearsal "warm" to the music rather than taking it from scratch, that rehearsal will move along more rapidly and accurately.  The time is spent wisely and well, and economically.

Furthermore, when tweaks are made during that rehearsal (and they will be), then a second distribution of the media will be necessary.  That is virtually guaranteed to happen for an extensive choral program.  Learning, refining, and mastering the performance is a process in real time, for people with obligations in between fixed calendar dates for physical rehearsals.

In days long gone by, the director and ensemble had no choice.  Each person got a printed score.  They more or less "learned" it solo at home, perhaps with a piano.  Only at the first rehearsal, the first get-together, was the actual requirement for ensemble sound worked out.  That's where each person discovered and first realized the _real_ intentions of the conductor for tempo, phrasing and dynamics.  Before then, until that first get-together, the printed score was all they had.  The paper score's 'moderato' and 'mf', and the printed fermatas over some notes, and the printed hairpin dynamics, were all they had ever seen -- and never heard.

That's changed now.

Now the director distributes a printed score and a sound file.  Everybody in the ensemble -- everybody -- has a PC capable of some playback of music from a file.  He distributes the printout and sound file as broadly within the organization as possible.  The music's sound, combined with the visual score, introduces them to the music well in advance of the scheduled and budgeted "get-together".  It guides their understanding of the director's intentions -- tempo, dynamics, with far more clarity than a printed score alone can do.

- -

Now for the director's scoring and playback choice.

Say he uses NWC (Composer) to score. 

Say he exports to MIDI. 

The MIDI export did not honor fermatas or breathmarks, critical components of choral music, because they are not parts of the MIDI specification.  So he must run Rick's external software tool to correct the tempo.  And he must do it every time he exports NWC to MIDI, such as when he revises some notes, or dynamics, or even lyrics.  And he will revise as he develops the score for the first rehearsal.  And later again, in between following rehearsals.  It is a separate and long-standing issue that NWC has not addressed a "smart" export of those two essential elements of choral music, and instead still requires the running of a separate, external tool created not by NWC but by a dedicated NWC user.  Requiring the choral notator to use a software application not part of NWC itself, each time he revises the music, in order to get an accurate MIDI file for distribution, is in itself a stretch on credibility of NWC as the preferred notation method.  But it is, again, a separate issue.

So he exports to MIDI.  He distributes the planned concert's eight or ten MIDI files to his chorus for playback in, say, Van Basco.  Then where is the choral group's incentive to even think about considering NWC as a rehearsal tool?  (Besides singing and rehearsing, some members also compose, arrange, and conduct in a once-a-year concert for "local" composers' music.)  The answer is, when they receive MIDI and work with Van Basco, there is no incentive.  Van Basco does not convince anyone to explore NWC as an ensemble vehicle.  NWC is out of the loop.

Further, playing back MIDI in Van Basco is not the best way to rehearse the music.  The preferred way is to "see and hear" the music for practice.  Not to see just the lyrics roll up, as in Van Basco.  And not to see Van Basco poorly handling multiple lyric staves, as in choral music.  The preferred way is to see the music, notes, dynamics, tempi and all, with the lyrics in real time.  As in the NW Viewer.

That's the NW Viewer's open door.  It's where the whole of NoteWorthy, Composer and Viewer, could be and should be the total ensemble's composition / arrangement / notation / playback loop.

And as the file being viewed/heard is the actual .NWC file, fermatas and breathmarks are played back faithfully.  (There was no need to export to MIDI, nor to use an external tool to get the tempo right.)

And of course, we're referring to the Viewer for playback and rehearsal.  'Requiring' all the ensemble members to purchase the NWC (Composer) license is not an option.

That total NW package is where the ensemble's work -- director's notation and distribution, and members' playback -- should focus. 

The ensemble's use of NoteWorthy should be by incentive:  functional power, practicality, and ease of use.  Introduction starts with the Viewer.

- -

Now for the singer, doing rehearsal with the Viewer.

The Viewer is free.  If it's functionally sound for a rehearsal application, it can be ideal and accepted within the ensemble.

The Viewer is the optimum way to learn the music, visually and aurally, showing the notes and lyrics "highlighted" as they are being heard.  It can be rehearsed "at home", as each singer's schedule permits, before showing up for the first "real" rehearsal, weeks later.  The incentives for this process are plain.

But the Viewer has an issue.  It has no  'Pause/Resume'  control.

The singer isn't playing the tune for casual enjoyment, start to finish.  He or she is learning a part.  The soprano is trying to control her beginning dynamic and swell where she enters two beats after the altos.  The person rehearsing the score needs to 'Pause' and 'Replay' a certain 8-bar phrase.  Or to hear the syncopation in the piano accompaniment for two beats before the voice entry -- and rehearse it.  Or to learn and rehearse the fade-out in the final four bars, in the tempo and dynamics.  And a dozen other examples. 

The Viewer should let members of the ensemble to begin considering NWC (Composer), and to consider purchasing a license for their own work.  They will naturally talk about it when they talk about the music and their rehearsals of it.  But their first impression, of a playback vehicle that lacks the basic playback tool of Pause and Resume at a designated spot, is not positive.

Let us experience it, thinking like they must.  Play an eight-minute work and let some middle portion of it, four minutes in, capture our interest.  Having to stop the music and start it over at the beginning, simply because it's the only way the Viewer works, is not your incentive to want to do it many more times.

The Viewer simply must have a 'Pause' control with the ability to 'Resume' at a user-designated position in the score.

This is very blunt talk.  But it has already been brought up in polite and respectful messages, including being 'seconded' by multiple users.  Frankly, is any other music player on the planet without such a function? 

It is an absolutely critical requirement for serious use of the Viewer.  Serious use of a fully-functional Viewer is the best way, by far, of distributing modern visual/aural scores within ensembles, directly from the Composer's .NWC files.  And that overall Composer-Viewer process, start to finish, is the best way of growing expanded acceptance and licensing of NWC (Composer) through making a positive impression, through familiarity and interaction within ensembles.

How about this forum post from another NW Viewer user, dated 2008-08-07:

> While I'm on the subject of NWC2 Viewer,
> any way we can get the following functionality
> on the wish list for the viewer, please?
>
> 1. a PAUSE button on the viewer.  Users tell me
> that it's a bit of a schlep when they're trying
> to rehearse a part and press stop only to have
> to start from the beginning again.
>
> 2. A way to start from a specified location in a
> file - if there are 400 bars and you want to
> rehearse say from bar 320, at present you have
> to play it all the way through to 320..
 
That was a year and a half ago.

Ignoring user requests is _not_ bliss.

One could also ask for the Viewer's ability to playback a selected staff (or to mute selected staves), so as to focus on ensemble playback controls, but one recognizes the desirability of not impacting too much on NWC (Composer) functionality.

   Composer:  'Smart' export of fermatas and breathmarks.

   Viewer:  Pause, and Resume at a designated bar.

   Viewer:  (Recommended)  Mute or playback designated staves.

Polite, tight, specific requests have been made, and have been echoed and 'seconded' by multiple users, going back more than six years.  They have been ignored through two extensive updates to Composer and one to Viewer.

Yes, blunt talk.  But multiple requests from users that have been totally respectful and professional for years, followed by inaction and silence -- not a word of feedback -- from software support during all that time, are a 'support' issue that has become a pain in the ass.

I'd like to have a serious conversation with a local director who uses Sibelius.  I'd like to give him the Scriptorium links so he can download and begin using some NWC music files.  But when you review the NWC issues outlined above, you can imagine how far that conversation will go.


Joe




 

87
General Discussion / Re: help with notation please
As Rick pointed out, you'll need to have "something" set for a time signature in each staff.  There's no such thing as "nothing" there.

In Western music, for example, if want 2/4 on one staff with 6/8 on another staff, you'll need to do some visual tweaking.  You'll need to use just the one time signature (like 2/4) on both staffs, and then use some triplets, or dotted notes, or hidden rests, to get the bar lines to line up vertically.

If your Lebanese work needs a lot of space inside a measure on one staff to contain the notes and lyrics, you might need to pad the other staffs with dotted notes or hidden rests.  Use the same time signature on all the staffs, to get the bar lines aligned vertically -- just use dotted notes and rests to get the music playing as you like it.

NoteWorthy doesn't force you to adhere to your designated time signature in a given measure.  It doesn't force a bar line on you after a certain amount of beats.  It's very flexible (which is one of its strong points).  

If you need more notes, to cover more lyric syllables, you can do it.  Just pad the other staffs as needed with rests or notes, and of course fix the tempo there if you need to.

Can you post an example of what you're looking to do?

88
General Discussion / Re: Wish-list: Icon or Keyboard Shortcut for Audit Note Stems
Quote from: Rick G. –
General Discussion works for me. <Here> (...Please see Rick's original message for the link...) is an example of a lively exchange that resulted in a notable improvement.

Yes, indeed it was good to see a NoteWorthy response and subsequent address of that issue.

What I'm asking about are the myriad requests that have been scattered for ... literally ... several years through various threads in several past newsgroups ...

... And not yet addressed, and in some cases not even acknowledged or responded to by a message from NoteWorthy:

... slurs.

... 'smart' MIDI export of fermatas and breath marks -- built-in, without having to use an external user-developed tool.

... Pause control in the Viewer.

There's no need to again detail what's been asked for there.  They've been discussed and 'seconded' nearly to death.

Yes, I am totally loyal to NWC and promoted its purchase in a meeting with a choral director less than four weeks ago.  He uses Sibelius now.  He'll evaluate four choral works notated in NWC, through downloading the NW Viewer.

You can bet your sweet 'bippie' he'll be put off quickly by stopping the Viewer to take a note or replay a part of a passage -- but having to restart the work from back at the beginning because of the lack of a Pause button.

That's just one example.  Any more would probably be too disagreeable to others.

[grump]

Re:  General Discussion ...

Humble opinion, topics which have been requested for such a long time -- years -- with lack of even a reply from the developer through what has now been a second Beta series since the original topics were brought up, deserve more than to be submerged in a General Discussion.

[/grump]

Joe Roberts




90
General Discussion / Re: Wish-list: Icon or Keyboard Shortcut for Audit Note Stems
Is there a Wish List forum?

Is there a place where ideas and suggestions for improvement can be posted, seen, and discussed?

Where they can be prioritized by Eric based on mutual, substantial user input?

Not isolated one-way messages to Eric.  A real forum?

... for NoteWorthy Composer,

... and NoteWorthy Viewer.


Joe

91
General Discussion / Re: Feature request: marcato marking
For staccato, tenuto, and hopefully a new symbol for marcato ...

...  How helpful it would be if the symbol's visual attribute could be controlled in the Note properties, i.e. made visible or invisible.

Example:

There are passages where groups of short notes (e.g., eighths) are interspersed with longer notes (e.g., quarters or halves).

They are _long_ passages.

The composer wants the 'short' notes to be played staccato, but not the longer notes.  But the score does _not_ show 'dots' on the short notes.

...  Consider a passage of several hundred notes, with mixed Staccato/Cantabile, scored on six separate staves for the full woodwind section, and you'll see what I mean. 

Inserting many dozens of invisible "Performance Style" marks, e.g. Staccato, Cantabile;  Staccato, Cantabile  ...  on and on, by the dozens, is a chore. 

All that's needed is to make the 'dots', 'dashes', 'carats', etc invisible.


Joe

93
General Discussion / Re: Scriptorium Update
Thank you, Rich, for your dedication in maintaining the Scriptorium.

What a treasure trove it is, probably at the very top of music resources on the Web. 

It's a superb place for finding music  --  and also for discovering what NoteWorthy Composer can do, with its collection of music scores made throughout the worldwide community of NWC enthusiasts.

Joe

94
General Discussion / Re: Request: Advanced player for choir members
Quote from: William Ashworth –
An improved player has been on the wish list for years. Perhaps now that ver. 2.1 is out Eric can turn his attention to some of the player's needs, which include not only volume control for separate staves but also tempo control and a pause button.

Bill

One can only hope that Eric will do that.

This will sound grumpy, but it's merely frank words.  They're from a devoted NWC user.

- - -

* Pause Button *

Please.

More than a simple Pause button, it would be better to be able to start or resume play from some bar/measure number entry.

But at the absolute minimum, how can one use the Player in a practical way without the ability to pause and resume?

- - -
 
Is the NWC Player the only one on the planet without a Pause control?

It's ridiculous to be four or five minutes into a nine-minute work, and have to stop the music to discuss it with someone, and have to restart it all over from the beginning.

The Player isn't just a freebie.  It can be the newcomer's introduction to the NoteWorthy world of music composition.  The impression it makes, intuitive or clunky, adds or subtracts toward developing a decision to purchase the Composer license.

- - -

Yes, this is a blunt and frank comment, again from a dedicated and devoted NWC user.

For how many years has this been asked for?  Is the Wish List unidirectional or bidirectional?


Joe Roberts





95
General Discussion / Re: NWC2 Dynamic Variance
Long question.

Would anyone have a view about whether modern and future audio hardware continues to support the Expression MPC?

   ... Suppose a person notating today in NWC wanted to put a work up on the Scriptorium.  A major concern would be whether it can be played back with reasonable accuracy through a majority population of contemporary audio hardware/software.

No point in using Expression-MPCs, if they can't be heard.

- - -

Can it be safely assumed that today's PC "state-of-the-art" (sic) supports the Expression MPC?

Illustration ...

Seems like centuries ago.  In less than ten years, this local audio setup went:

   ...  Pentium, Crystal Audio, built-in wavetable.
   ...  Pentium II, 350 MHz, Sound Blaster AWE-32 (ISA), 8MB soundbanks.
   ...  Pentium III, 800 MHz, Sound Blaster PCI-128, Yamaha XG Synth.
   ...  Pentium 4, 3.4 Ghz, Audigy 2, variety of soundbanks.

Not meaning to dwell on this, but that's four configurations in less than ten years.  The goal was to get more "realistic" music from the PC.  It's just meant to illustrate one local case, among many cases, of how rapidly PC technology moves on.

I can't possibly recall whether "Expression MPCs" might have worked, or not, in those old configurations.  They do work in the current one, the last one mentioned above.

What about the future?  Can it be assumed that Expression MPCs will be standard and supported?

If a person scores Expression MPCs in NWC, is it 'safe' to expect them to be heard?  Or should something else be used instead?

Joe
96
General Discussion / Re: NWC2 Dynamic Variance
To Folks following this Dynamic Variance thread ...

I posted a reply to a message here in this thread, but it got steered into a new topic with the same title.

Apparently it happened through a login timeout.  The login worked, and the message was posted, but this original thread connection was lost when the message was posted.

If you see the message in another thread, please feel free to reply to it here in this original thread, rather than splitting the topic into separate threads.

Joe


97
General Discussion / Re: NWC2 Dynamic Variance
Quote from: Rick G. –

...
Their recommendation is that Volume remain constant during playback and that expression (along with velocity) be used for dynamics. They imply that NWC should use 'Change Channel Expression' rather than 'Change Channel Volume'. NWC's hairpins and Dynamic Variances should look for Expression settings, rather than Volume settings.

I am agnostic on the subject, except to say that their recommendation that 'Volume remain constant during playback' allows the user to change the initial Volume setting to bring out a specific channel during playback.


That was valuable advice, Rick ... Many thanks for it.

It tests well here with the Audigy 2. 

   ...  Set two staves, the first with Channel Volume=127 and the second with Volume=32 (say).

   ...  Identical patch (say, Clarinet) and starting dynamic (say, 'f') in each.

   ...  Identical continuous, tied note through several bars.

   ...  Identical Expression MPC, say from 20 to 127.

The Expression swell to 127 is louder in the first staff than in the second (as would be expected).

It's so much easier than doing it with MPC-Volume, because with the MPC-Expression one doesn't have to reset the volume after the swell.

I wish I had known about it years ago (or thought to ask).  Many thanks again.

Joe

98
General Discussion / Re: NWC2 Dynamic Variance
What's the difference between these two MPCs?

   ...  MPC-Expression

   ...  MPC-Volume


They both seem to be used to control crescendo/diminuendo dynamics on held notes.  How do they work differently?

I apologize if this has been covered elsewhere in NWC, but I couldn't find it.  (Web searches on "MIDI Expression" pull up Wah-Wah pedals.)

Joe



99
Announcements / Re: NoteWorthy Composer 2.1 Beta 11
- - -

...  Not wanting to interrupt the current threads in any way ... I don't know where else to post this question.

- - -

Where in the forum should we discuss other 'wish list' items for NWC 2.1+?   When would it be appropriate to do so?

How about desired new items for NW Player?

- - -

I know the backup filenaming convention thread is important.  When it's resolved, will there be another place for other Beta topics, or is this forum the proper spot when the time is right?

Joe