I am using version 2.1. The notes are on a line. So how can it be fixed?
Why do you want it fixed when it's the correct notation?
In multi-part writing, if the upper voice is dotted then the dot is placed in the higher space (if necessary) and the lower voice dot appears in the lower space. NW actually implemented this properly for the first time in a recent release, so please don't knock it!
I would support a change to use expression instead of volume in NWC's dynamics and hairpins.
So would I! It's the logical thing to do. Then volume can be set to the preferred level and expression can be varied from the existing dynamic level and then reset by a new dynamic.
The problem for two note clusters only occurs in the final instance and can easily be fixed.
Agreed that three or more notes can produce problems whatever the stem arrangement, but these too can be made more satisfactory than the present effort.
Sorry to say 'Alfred' disagrees with you. The dot is always absolutely central in the space, and extra dots can (should?) be added above and below as required (but, I think, no more than one of each) to compensate for the lack of available spaces.
That said, my suggestion completely solves the problem of any two note cluster. Interestingly a split-stem two-note cluster is treated correctly all the time so at present NWC is inconsistent!
I think there's a very simple fix to the dottted note cluster problem. 'Alfred' is quite specific
Quote
Two dots never share the same space.
But the fix is simply, where NW is putting two dots in the same space, just put one there and one in the space below. In many cases this will solve the problem without further ado. With more complex clusters this will lose a dot (because the dot in the lower space will be duplicated) but the user can insert a text dot if so wished.
and those paired dots in the same staff space are just not right. It would be better to leave one of them out, but since the program evidently recognizes this situation why not put the dot for the space note where it should be and the dot for the line note one space away. At worst this second dot would only duplicate a dot already there from another note in a very clustered chord.
But 'White' is non-standard (and wouldn't 'transparent' be a better colour for this purpose?) But I agree that colouring the accents is a desirable feature.
It would be nice to have a palette stored with each file so that files can be ditributed properly.
I wonder if just listing saved files in History would not be more convenient. I would like to use History for the files I am actively working on rather than just browsing.
After a bit of thought, so do I. My doubt was the instance where the head notes are a second apart but going back to first principles soon sorted that out.
I think the alignment problems (on two staves, above) arise because the assumption is made that the left hand note is the basis of the chord position, whereas it should be the head note of the chord which can be left, middle or right depending on the circumstances. And it is the head notes which should be aligned on each stave.
If there is a note to the left of the head note then it should take space from the preceding note/chord so that (where possible) the basic note spacing is that of the head notes.
And the head notes at a second anomaly (which gave me pause for thought) arises because NW doesn't handle a simple second with opposite stem directions properly. The stems in this instance should align. And it is then easy to add seconds to each chord member to produce Rick's result.
There is still a problem in this case of deciding which head note determines the position of the chord. From a very limited set of examples it looks like the bottom chord has precedence.
the B should align with the G, and not the F. NW is lining up the upper chord head note (B) on the left hand member (F) of the lower chord instead of the head note (G). The same effect occurs in your rest chord which is similarly misaligned.
There's plenty of room for the F to be pulled to the left to correct the problem, but NW don't seem to want any risk of note crowding :-(
I can't get too worked up about clefs breaking triplets; that's pretty esoteric in real life, but there's no excuse for printing a clef change at full size; that's just plain sloppy.
Can't say for definite but I played a file in NWC then exported it to midi and pplayed it through Media Player, then went back to NWC and the file played fine. So perhaps Vista has sorted it out.
Ah yes, but of course you wouldn't use a restchord in this situation since both voices are beamed, so layering would be necessary. I was thinking more of the case where the longer notes were beamed but the shorter ones were not. Possible but unlikely. Unless someone knows differently.
I think the programmatic logic of why you can't beam a restchord is clear, but can't see why both parts of a split-stem chord or the note part of a restchord can't. e.g. why can't this clip be processed correctly?
I say inexplicable because: in a split duration chord, there is ambiguity as to which voice is to be beamed. Nonetheless, NWC2 allows it. There is no ambiguity for a RestChord, yet NWC2 forbids it.
The ambiguity of a split stem chord is visual only: all is revealed in its clip representation. NW will only beam the 'dur' note, never the 'dur2'. For equal length notes this seems to depend on the order of entry. For differing lengths the shorter is always the 'dur' note which can be beamed.
Sadly in restchords the rest is always the 'dur', never the 'dur2', and that's why it can't be beamed.
And I'm afraid I don't understand your example; it doesn't seem to have much to do with my hypothesis.
inexplicably, NoteWorthy will not allow notes in a RestChord to be beamed.
Well it's actually explicable (but nevertheless unwarrantable and should be fixed). I'd imagine the rest-chord grew out of the multi-duration chord, and there you can only beam (sensibly in fact) the shorter duration note. Now in a rest-chord the shorter duration component is the rest, which obviously can't be beamed, so there is no way for the longer component (the note) to be beamed.
There are two things needed here. The first is to allow the rest to be longer than the note, and then, if the rest is the same length (or longer) than the note, then the note becomes the shorter component and can be beamed just as in a multi-duration chord.
I stand to be corrected, but I can't actually envisage in real life beaming a longer note when accompanied by a shorter rest.
Thank you William for clearing that up. I was just hearing the sound in my head and trusting Dmitri to be 'honest'. Nevertheless we might still need an 'S' but in lower case since the German notation for Eb is Es.
But if the score is truly blank with just bar lines then you'll only get the first measure number. For a bar line to count there has to be something with musical duration (note or rest) inside the bar itself.
Normally a hairpin is continuous over its (successive) notes, but it can be broken by inserting an invisible dynamic variance (rinforzando is suitably incongruous ;-). This has no effect on playback, whereas an actual dynamic probably would alter it.
This is particularly useful at a system break where the appropriate height of the hairpin needs to be different on the two systems, e.g. where high notes have forced it skywards on the first system but have left it floating way too high over lower notes on the succeeding system.
Using a beam to indicate multiple notes for a lyric syllable is the old-fashioned way and is not supported by NW. To achieve the equivalent (modern) effect you'll need to slur the notes appropriately.
Pretty obvious, what's the problem, I thought. Then I copied the clip, and (am I going mad?) that's not the same as the original!
So do the following:
Create a new file in NWC
Insert Clef, Key and Time Signatures
Insert the two fermatas, one above and one below the staff
Insert a semibreve rest
Chord it with a semibreve note
Look at Print Preview!
Add a new staff and copy the first staff to it.
Look at Print Preview!
Save and re-open the file
Look at Print Preview!
In fact the rest chord is treated correctly in the first preview (except for the pause marks), with the note at the left of the bar and the rest in the middle, but why does it change when it's copied or saved?
I have an intrinsic dislike of truly invisible items on the stave – you can never find them again. And I'm puzzled as to why people try to hide everything in the editor (i.e. they try to make it look as much like the printed version as possible) when functionally it is much more like the HTML behind a browser screen, which only becomes visible in all its glory when it is displayed (or the editor is 'viewed' in NWC).
Let all the grisly detail be shown in the editor and then you can always see what is going on!
The notational slur on a grace note is functionally different from a legato slur over a group of notes, and Noteworthy is correct to treat them independently.
The instance trying to be achieved is quite rare and that is where layering could be used. The normal treatment is correct as it stands.
There are two possibilities (maybe more) that come to mind.
You cannot intrinsically underline lyrics but one way would be to layer another staff with underlines as lyrics where appropriate.
Alternatively you can use text underlines. The basic expression placement would be centred at next note, but you'd have to adapt this for slurred/tied notes and multi-syllabic words.
And as I write Lawrie has demonstrated a third method!
The technique also works on a penny whistle. Half-stop the end with your little finger (pinky) and you get the leading note below the supposed bottom (tonic) note.
Loading the file into NWC2 plays it as you suggest, but replaying it (with or without an F6 reset) then plays the first note at Vol=127, so it doesn't seem that the initial soundcard conditions can actually be relied on.
I still don't see why everything has to be so complex, and as for the original tip, I don't see that it actually does anything since the hairpin will in any case extend nearly to the barline.
But to demonstrate simplicity (without grace notes or headless/tailless notes) how about this?
Obviously the rests need to be offset to 2000, but I've kept them local for demonstration purposes. And you can really play around with hairpin placement by adjusting the lengths of the rests. And the MPCs show how to get the correct playback too (which grace notes tend to mess up).
