The problem would disappear if we were able to specify the playing length of a grace note. Then we could interpret trills and ornaments as precisely as we wished.
If we could also specify whether they came before or after the beat, and whether they were actually appoggiaturs or acciaccaturas then that would be a worthwhile addition to the programs capabilities.
Layering of course is pointless here (a hidden staff is much cleaner) since layering is to do with appearance and getting the score to look right.
There are other potential ways of trilling. For instance a muted note chorded with an invisible sounding note would let you write out the trills in proper notes.
But whichever way it's done in-line notation is simpler and more intuitive than separate staves for look and performance. And if you have to staves then you have to keep them in synch with key, clef, dynamic, channel, volume, transposition, instrument etc. A right royal pain!
That's exactly what the grace notes do. They take time from the following note.
So, if you want to sound the note and then trill on it, tie the right number of grace notes together to get the note started, and then insert the trill.
Essentially the printed note is being replaced by the sequence of grace notes, so, within the limits mentioned in reply #2 (NW are you listening?) you can interpret/replace any note with your desired sequence.
You can use the behaviour of grace notes to achieve what you want.
A grace note (of whatever length) has a playing duration of a demisemiquaver (1/32) and it takes this time from the following proper note. You can put the whole trill into hidden grace notes before the trill note itself. If you want longer trill notes then tie grace notes together.
If the trill length is shorter than the duration of the visible note then it will sound for the balance of its duration once the trill has sounded, but otherwise you will need to mute the visible note, because in that situation it sounds along with the first note of the trill!
This is not ideal since you are restricted to multiples of 1/32, and not even triplets have an effect on grace note playing lengths :-(
If you want an appoggiatura then leave one of the grace notes visible.
In that case the Cx is correct since this is a chord of A#major. The preceding chord is possibly D# but without the third it's impossible to tell whether it's major or minor.
However D# minor is a perfectly respectable key (six sharps), and its dominant is A# major which needs the Cx (which is indeed the leading note in this key).
Noteworthy should be congratulated on their pro-activity in neutralizing a dastardly threat.
Apparently, all known copies of Mozart's Requiem notated in NWC vanished suddenly and without explanation. But at least now there's evidence of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Assuming the tied note starts outside the ending bars, insert the tied note before the first ending and tie it into the first ending. You'll have a Master Repeat Close at the end of the bar. Then insert the second ending and insert the tied note again. You'll see that the original note is in fact tied, separately to both of the other two notes.
Something like this where _ denotes a tie, and n a note.
There are some fairly messy ways of achieving n-tuplets with tempo changes, hidden tied notes, and text insertions etc etc, but I can't really recommend them as anything other than remedies in extremis.
You've hit the nail on the head with simple division. All the hard work has already been done implementing triplets, and extending this to other divisions should be a piece of cake.
Yes, I repeated it because you obviously didn't understand it, or possibly you don't understand the purpose of the editor. Perhaps could you indicate rather more clearly exactly what is unsatisfactory. There are essentially three choices - please feel free to select one.
The playback doesn't satisfy you. The remedy is to rewrite the hidden staff appropriately.
The printed output fails to satisfy you. Difficult one, this, since there's really not much that can go wrong. You do realise you have to put the hidden rests on all the staves apart from the hidden realisation staff.
The note-chase irritates you in the Editor. The solution is to use the Player or the Plug-in.
And believe me, I wasn't preaching, but rather pointing out your arrogance, ignorance and general bad manners. And, although we don't normally mention it because we all make typos, your appalling spelling. Nevertheless all of us NWCers try to help and will continue to do so in spite of the slings and arrows.
You are obviously a very impatient, unreasonable and, I fear, rather spoilt young(?) man(?). Forgive me if I have either your sex or age wrong, but you really don't seem to have tried to understand any of the help and advice you have been proffered.
If only you were prepared to try out this freely granted assistance you would find that, indeed, your question has already been answered. To be fair, any written instructions probably need interpretation and a certain amount of trial and error before they do what was intended, but you seem incapable of investing any time or effort in working out the problem. Rather, like some Roman Emperor, you would prefer the solution to be available at the languid inflexion of a supercilious imperial hand.
Let's get real.
You want the trill (with BTW a double 'l') to sound correctly. Then write it out on the hidden (layered) staff as you want it. That satisfies your first requirement. Or if it doesn't then you're just incompetent at writing out what you want, which of course could not possibly be the case.
Now comes the tricky bit, especially for the arrogant and impetuous. Your realisation takes a certain length of time: somewhat longer (by an ascertainable amount) than the visible Trill note with its fermata would suggest. Don't put any delay on the Fermata but pad the bar out with hidden rests to the exact same length as your realisation of the trill.
Then it plays right - you've written it out yourself so there's no problem there: and it looks right when printed - just a note with a fermata over it.
No, I meant precisely what I said. You asked for a mechanism which extended the playing time of the trill. So on the visible staff insert hidden rests after the trill note to extend the playing time to what is required, and on the hidden staff put the actual notes of the extended trill.
Yes, the rests show up in grey in the editor, but they don't show on the printed score (nor in the Player or Plug-In). So your printed score is correct, and the music plays as you want it.
As a cautionary note, you can't audit barlines after this unless you add a hidden time signature in the altered bar (and the next one too to reset it)
If you have the same instrument patch (i.e. sample) on two different staves then you'll get interference between them because the same waveform is being played at slightly out of synch (the two MIDI events to start the notes playing can't be precisely simultaneous).
Perhaps you could try setting one of the channels to a different instrument and see if the problem persists.
To record in real time (assuming your pianistic skills are up to it) you need a rhythm or click track of the right duration (or longer), preferably with a lead-in so you know when to start.
Add another staff to your score and set it to MIDI channel 10 (percussion). Enter the required rhythm in first bar (measure). Count up the number of bars you want with this rhythm and change the ending bar line to Local Repeat Close with the desired repeat count. Change the opening bar line to Local Repeat Open. If the rhythm changes part way through just duplicate the LRO Pattern LRC combination with the new pattern.
Now record your track and cut and paste it into the appropriate staff in your piece. You'll probably have to audit accidentals, and you can even quantize the sample by passing it through a MIDI import first.
No indeed there isn't. You can select a range of music and change its time value to half by pressing "-", but sadly this does not extend to tripletizing.
But if you do select just a bar then you can tripletize it. Unfortunately the triplet sign will span the whole bar regardless of the notes that actually make up the musical phrase.
But it's not stupid. The tenor voice lies quite nicely in the treble clef transposed down an octave, whereas most of the top of the range would be on leger lines if written at pitch in the bass clef.
I think you're making a simple mistake. The music doesn't split into systems as it does on the printed page but just continues on the same line for as many bars as you need. The page scrolls back and forth as necessary to show the position you are editing.
To see what it looks like on the printed page you just go into print preview.
On a keyboard - yes, although there are some baroque keyboards that have different keys for G#/Ab. That's because in the days before equal temperament they were two quite distinct pitches.
On a violin they could well be played differently since theoretically they are not quite the same.
You need to use Force System Break in Bar Line/Properties in two different ways.
Your first problem is to get more bars on the bottom system, so force a break before the desired first bar for the final system and put a break on the top staff. You may have to adjust more of the piece in a similar fashion to get a decent look. Don't do this until you have the entire piece more or less as you want it or you'll have to undo it all when you make a change!
Now to get a tidy ending insert a decorated bar line at the very end of the top staff, making it a Section Close and putting a break on it too.
Ed - you're right in most cases, but sometimes you do need the repeat and it has been the subject of many requests that we ought to be able to specify the required behaviour. My comment was intended as a gentle nudge ;-)
Rachel - you're barking up the wrong tree. Get rid of the MRC at the end of your staff - you don't need it in your example.
Now insert a bar line at the end of section A, select it, right click on the selection and click on properties. Select the Master Repeat Close style. Now insert another bar line and change its style to Master Repeat Open. At the end of B put another MRC (you could actually just copy and paste the existing one!)
After that insert DC al Coda and Coda, (you'll find them in Insert/Flow Direction, or just type F in the right place and follow the menu), and there you are.
No, that's not right - my fault for being too concise. I'm not using |¯1 and |¯2 at all.
On the contrary all references to MRs are to bar lines, particularly in their incarnation of Master Repeat Open and Master Repeat Close. Just put in a bar line and set it to the appropriate MR type. The junction of A and B will require a closing MRClose followed in close order by an opening MROpen.
You don't need 1st and 2nd time bars in your piece. A starts with MRO and closes with MRC. Then B does exactly the same. Then come DC al Coda and Coda.
Enclose A with Master Repeats (MRs) and the same with B.
At the end of A, before the MR Close insert to Coda.
At the end of B and after the MRC, in other words at the start of C, insert both DC al Coda and Coda.
You'll want to right justify the DC al Coda and left justify the Coda for appearance sake.
This only works because of a quirk - NWC ignores MRs once it has encountered a DC. If you wanted A to repeat the second time then you'd have to play around with Local Repeats which is much trickier.
The method I've taken great pains to elucidate in reply #2 lights up the notes for each verse independently, and the lyrics too. What more do you want?
Seriously chaps - please try it out before pontificating. Yes, I use layered staffs. No, I don't use MPCs. Yes, I use first and second time repeats which is precisely what you'd think ought to be used.
FWIW Fred's Magic Flute uses this method in one of the songs (where the technique first saw the light of day) to have entirely different choruses for each verse.
If you just want two versions of the verse (as it would appear in printed music) then put the first verse stem-up, then chord the second verse stem-down. So in your case the first note would be a chord stem-up dotted crotchet with a stem down crotchet followed by a stem-down stand-alone quaver, followed by a chorded stem-up and stem-down quaver.
In the first verse put an underline ( _ ) where the missing syllable occurs.
If you want to have the thing play back correctly too then it's more complicated. You have to use staff layering. Then on staff 1 put verse one with stem-up notes where the verses are different, and staff 2 with stem-down notes. Put the appropriate lyrics on the appropriate staffs. Most of the lyrics for both verses will be on staff 1, but where verse 2 is different you put underscores in staff 1 and put the lyrics on staff 2.
Ensure the two staffs are set to the same instrument/dynamic etc.
Now the clever/tricky bit. You need to insert (everything from now on invisible) a minim rest (that's the duration of the difference - quarter + 2 eighths) immediately before the difference on each staff.
On Staff 1 insert '2nd time repeat' before the minim, and a '1st time repeat' before the v1 version, then a '1st + 2nd time repeat' after it. On staff 2 it's vice versa of course.
If there are other staves then insert an '8th time repeat', minim rest, '1st + 2nd time repeat' so that the staves line up.
It might be a touch distracting if the whole screen moves every time you insert a note, but certainly it would be nice to have the screen jump perhaps a bar earlier than it does. That would mean there would always be a bar of music (or equivalent blank space) after the insertion point.
The idea of setting a section of a staff to non-printing is exactly right, but then I think you make an unnecessary assumption - i.e. none of the non-printing bit should be printed.
Far easier just to say that if a staff on any particular system is specified as non-printing over the entire system, then don't print it.
Any bits which are a mix of printing and non-printing get printed as normal (and indeed as is found in many examples of printed music).
And the rule can be simplisticly applied. It should make no difference whether there is anything actually prinitable or not - that would be up to the user to check.
It's perfectly clear and entirely reasonable. It's also not terribly difficult to do, except of course that the user interface has to work. Let's just keep the pressure up, and who knows what might happen!
Re Reply 2: Carl, you are quite right that a higher string can excite a lower string, but that string only oscillates with frequencies that were present in the higher string, certainly not with its fundamental.
How could it? Looking at a string an octave above , the first peak excites the lower string. The second peak turns the lower string round (so to speak) thus exciting the higher tone, whereas the fundamental would require the string to keep going so that it oscillated at half the speed of the upper string. So the lower fundamental is automatically damped by the upper fundamental.
Try an experiment on the piano. Hold a low note ddown. Then strike and release one of the high octaves of that note. You will hear the frequency of the struck note reverberating on the lower note, but no lower "harmonics".
Now strike an octave lower down. You'll hear that tone added to the open string. etc, etc. But you'll never hear the open strings own fundamental until you strike a note lower than it. It's quite instructive to hit non-octave notes as well and see where the resonances happen.
Interesting, bit I felt that the enhanced version sounded as though the left hand was being played an octave lower.
It's a basic rule of harmonics that a fundamental cannot excite harmonics or resonances at a lower frequency than itself. The ear has adapted itself to assume that the lowest harmonic it can hear is actually the origin of the sound, so your putting a lower octave in the sound spectrum makes the ear guess that that is the original.
Along the same lines, there is a choral trick to make the audience believe that your choir contains multiple Russian basso profundos, and that is to get those who can sing below the stave to do so (augmented possibly, but don't tell anyone, by a discreet tone on the organ), but to put all the other basses on the octave above.
Not over on this side of the pond. It neither rhymes with potato nor is its plural anything other than "..oes". Its possessive would of course be "...o's" but that's another matter.
