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 - MusicJohn

201
General Discussion / Backwards Searching

   The Search facility - initiated by Ctrl F - seems only to search forwards.  Does anyone know if it can be made to search backwards ... and if it can't, maybe this should be added to the Wish List?

   MusicJohn, 13/Apr/07
203
General Discussion / Re: Keeping beamable notes unbeamed
   Yes; that certainly seems to work (in 1.75b I seem to be able to place the rest, and move it up or down wherever I want, before adding the chorded note in the right place).  And by "adjusting" the length of the rest-chord up or down to its limits and then back, I can end up with a rest/note combination which has exactly the right length to fit at that place in the bar/measure.  And since this rest/note combination can't be beamed to, and so won't form the end of a beam set, I can Alt-TA beam the staff without fear that I'll also beam the notes I want to stay unbeamed.

   It's interesting that you can beam *over* a rest but not *onto" a rest.  It's also interesting that you can in this way beam over a rest-chord, and that the latter - not really a part of the beamed set at all - can then be manipulated almost independently of the beamed notes.  In fact, it can be created somewhere else and then Control-C/Control-V inserted into the beamed group (and it can be extracted from the group without breaking the group), where it adds to the bar but not to the beamed group.  I wonder what other properties it has!

   MusicJohn, 6/Feb/07
204
General Discussion / Keeping beamable notes unbeamed
   A succession of notes (like quavers, semi-quavers etc) can be beamed manually (select, then Control-B), and all beamable notes in a staff can be beamed "automatically" using Alt-TA.  Once beamed, selected ones can then be unbeamed if required (with Control-B again). 

   Is it possible, however, to prevent beaming in the first place - to force a note NOT to be included in any beamed group - in the same sort of way, say, that a note can be forced NOT to have a lyric syllable attached to it?  This would be quite useful in the instances I regularly come across when I'm keying stuff in, a line at a time, and Alt-TA beaming at the end of each line, but nevertheless want some notes to remain unbeamed no matter what (and although I could, eventually, go back and unbeam them manually, I'd rather not have to remember!).

   And I appreciate that sometimes a note can be left - and remain - unbeamed ... for example, when a group of 4 semi-quavers has either the first three or the last three beamed manually, the fourth one will remain unbeamed even when subjected to an Alt-TA ... but how can I *prevent* a pair of semi-quavers being Alt-TA beamed?

   MusicJohn, 5/Feb/07
205
General Discussion / Re: Strange clicking noises
   Hi, People.

   It is with some embarrassment that I have to report that, having found an example of a File with the unpleasant "tcking" noise, and having - on a whim - experimented with changing the instruments, I have discovered that it seems to be the instrument itself that is the cause of the "problem".  Specifically, it is flute-like instruments - the flute and the piccolo - and other "breathy" ones, such as (going down the list) the recorder, the pan flute, the bottle blow (!), and the shakuhachi (whatever that is) ... but not the whistle or the ocarina.  It seems to be built in; generally, an instrument that starts each note with a puff of air has the "tck" sound at the beginning of the note.  And the greater the dynamic, the more apparent the "tck" (which is I suppose obvious given that increased dynamics represent increased velocity, and so hitting/attacking the note harder).

   Oh well; sorry to waste your time.

   On the other hand ... I still remember reading something about this many, many years ago, as well as - and possibly connected - being invited to increase the buffer size.  Surely someone else has come across these.  Eric??  Speak to us, Eric!!

   MusicJohn, 12/Nov/06

206
General Discussion / Re: Strange clicking noises
   Hi, Rick.

   You make the point about synths having a finite number of simultaneous voices, and then dropping sustained notes.  You suggest a test: add a playing style of staccato to each staff and if the clicking goes away then that's the problem.

   Hmmm.  Staccato doesn't seem to make any difference, and anyway I need all the notes in other styles.

   But ... do I assume that no-one else has any knowledge of what I seem to recall - some sort of "Help File" message about this tapping or clicking noise problem?  And - and possibly connected - a recommendation to increase the buffer space?

               Eric: can you help here?

   MusicJohn, 10/Nov/06
207
General Discussion / Strange clicking noises
    Hi, People.

   Many, many years ago, when I was still using Version 1.1, I think I read somewhere - possibly in a Help File - about notes sometimes sounding with a sort of included tapping or clicking noise, and that this was curable by ... and I've forgotten what!  Perhaps increasing the buffer size/number (and I remember an initial "error" message which said there was too little buffer space, and would I like to increase it!)?  Or summat.

   I often experience such a tapping noise, and I would like to get rid of it.  Does anyone know anything about this?

   MusicJohn, 8/Nov/06
208
General Discussion / Re: Sound card recommendation
   Hi, Irewk.

   My limited experience shows that in general modern sound cards are intended primarily for converting digitised sound into analogue - which is great if you're playing games or listening to a CD.  Some are - according to the magazines - much better at this than others, it depending mostly on the D-A chip they use (some people will swear that they can play CDs better on their computer than on their HiFi set [:-)]  ). So far as I know all modern cards can deal with sound fonts, and obviously the better the chip the better they'll convert a digitized sample into analogue sound.  So, if their own internal font - which may be a "synthesised" one rather than a sampled one - is rubbish (and for many it is), downloading an alternative font is the way to go.

   I use mostly a Creative AWE 64 Gold, which is old but serviceable, and has an acceptable internal font built-in.  I also have a whizzy Terratec card which at one time got the Editor's Recommendation in PCW, but with its built-in font produces absolutely terrible sound from midi files !  I reckon you'll be happy with whatever is the current name of the Soundblaster/Creative/Audigy card.  You can pick up satisfactory older models of these on E-bay very cheaply.

   MusicJohn, 26/Oct/06


209
General Discussion / Re: Too many staves
   Hi, Jennifer.

   "Oh bother - I have just discovered you are John Hooper!!!"

   Worry not.  And despite all the suggestions and advice I got, in the end I chickened out and did almost nothing ... except that I "faked" it by representing the longer note as a collection of suitable shorter notes slurred - not tied - together.  So, if, for example, the short note was a crotchet and the longer note a minim I "faked" the minim as two slurred crotchets, while if the short note was a dotted crotchet and the longer note a minim I faked the latter with a dotted crotchet slurred to a following quaver.

   This "solution" works because the destination slurred note has to be turned on by a "note on" command, which is issued just after the shorter note's "note off" command, so it's almost as if the longer note was real.  Almost; you only just - just - notice the join ... that the longer note is really two shorter ones!  [:-)]

   I think I got them all this way.  I think!

   MusicJohn, 20/Oct/06
210
General Discussion / Re: Too many staves

   David/Rick, thanks for your further comments.

   David: you suggest that MP3 files wouldn't be that bad ... but in this particular case they would, they most certainly would!  "Gerontius" is about 90 minutes long; that's quite a few Megabytes, I fear.  And yes, as you suggest, all the Files are to be uploaded to, and then (by the User) downloaded from, my Website (see www dot thehoopers dot demon dot co dot uk, as I noted in a previous response).

   Rick:  I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're suggesting with the V2 clips (I only have V1.75, so can't actually load in the clips).  However, I can work out that it's slurred fah, me, re, doh in one, and - 1/64 later - slurred doh, re, me, fah in the other.  Ye-e-es ... but for a short time the two res overlap - and unfortunately the instrument patch in the upwards set between the re and the me cuts off the re in the downwards set.  And while you're right that the 6th rest won't be that noticeable, ... hmmmm.

   Oh well; I will give thought to all your suggestions, and make a decision.  Perhaps!  [:-)]

   MusicJohn, 9/Oct/06
211
General Discussion / Re: Too many staves
   Hi, David/Barry.  Thanks for the comments.

   David said:-

"I wonder if adding a number of redundant layered staffs could help?  ... Somewhere in this array there should be a place where one of the  channels is not being used"

   That's an interesting suggestion, and I'll give it some thought - and try it out to see what it sounds like ... though I shouldn't need that many extra layered staves, just sufficient for the 4 that are currently doubled up (they're the only ones that are ever doubled!).

   Mind you, as you say: it's going to be more like crawling than being on the fly, and very tedious indeed, because I'll have to use and remove - and reset! - instrument patches.

   Barry suggests:-

"The simplest answer is to replace your AWE64 with a later model Creative card such as the Live! (an OEM version should be very cheap now)."

   Well, yes - but as he then observes:-

"Your problem is the end user - if they only have an old soundblaster then they will only hear 16 channels."

   and since the whole point is to provide the end User with something useful I fear this is a non-starter.

   Barry then adds:-

"The only answer there is to create mp3 files from the output."

and this is certainly an answer, and undoubtedly it will provide the best-sounding Files, but ... the cost is enormous Files and horrendous download times (for people without broadband).  I fear I'm going to have to stick with Midi for the moment.

   Barry then adds further:-

"Having two channels playing the same pitch with the same patch will not sound good anyhow - there is always a "flanging" effect - frequency interference that distorts the sound.  If you must have the sound of the same instrument at the same pitch write one only and add some chorus (controller 93) to the unison section - it will give a much cleaner result."

which is all true, but ...

a)   it doesn't happen very often, and anyway the whole purpose of this is to provide Rehearsal Files that my fellow Choir Members can download and use to practise with, so it doesn't matter that much if the sounds are a bit odd (certainly much less than having them not last for the right time). 

b)   and I'm already using plenty of chorus effect - this is, after all, a choral choir singing - and in any case I still have to be able to distinguish between two staves playing the same note at the same pitch but for different lengths.  From a single Master File not only must there be prepared a variant where the First Choir Sopranos are emphasised while the Seconds are pushed into the background but there must be one where the exact opposite happens (you can see what I mean by looking at examples from my Website - www dot thehoopers dot demon dot co dot uk  .

   Hmmm.  Though, come to think of it, a related answer might be to have two separate Master Files, one in which all the First Choir voices get precedence, and the relevant notes in the Second Choir voices are muted (and since they're pushed into the background anyway the complete absence of the occasional note here and there won't be noticed), and the other where it's the opposite way round.  I'll think about that, too.

   Ah, well.  As I said previously, I think I'm stuffed ... but thanks for all your comments.

   MusicJohn, 07/Oct/06

212
General Discussion / Re: Too many staves


   Hi, Lawrie, Hi Rick.

   Thanks for your comments - especially about what the various devices "are".  I suspected some of this - that Midi Mapper "mapped" to one of the others (the name's a bit of a give-away), and the fact that I couldn't use both it and the AWE 64G MIDI Synth - but I hadn't thought it through.

   Lawrie, you wonder whether, if I'm making rehearsal files, I can "mix'n'match" the channel usage so ONLY instruments double up on channels and all the vocal channels are separate.  Well, sadly no.  Elgar wrote the Work for 3 solo voices, 4 semi-chorus voices, 4 First Choir voices and 4 Second Choir voices, and they all (well, most) are singing at the same time, so that's 15 channels.  Expanding the two staves of the piano reduction to a sort of 4 stave fake orchestra makes it 19 in all, and all at once. 

   It's the "all at once" bit that mucks things up.  Many works have this many voices/instruments, but used in small combinations in different sections each of which is distinct from the next, so that I can change the channel distribution from one section to the next.  Unfortunately Elgar has only a single chunk of silence in, oh, the 35 parts that make up "Gerontius", and at least some of the time everybody is doing something, so if I provide a "combined section" File then it has to cater as best it can for everybody being separate even in the bits where they aren't (it's a pity it's not technically possible to re-assign channels on the fly).  So ... I'm stuffed!

   But ... it only happens now and again, so I guess I - and those who use my Files - will just have to lump it!

   Anyway, thanks again for your comments.

   MusicJohn, 07/Oct/06
213
General Discussion / Re: Too many staves
   Too many staves

   Hi, Rich/Lawrie.

   Thanks for the suggestions.

   Rich: though I've been playing with the Soundblaster for yonks, I had not previously managed to find out about its inclusion of, and ability to drive, two sound devices at once.

   When I look, I find I have

a)   Midi Mapper (which is what I normally use),
b)   Creative Music Synth [220]
c)   AWE 64G MIDI Out [300]
d)   AWE 64G MIDI Synth [620]

   whatever they all mean.

   When I test each, one at a time, on a plain one note staff, I find that the Midi Mapper, the Creative Music Synth and the AWE 64G MIDI Synth work fine (though the quality of sound from the Creative Music Synth is appalling), but that the AWE 64G MIDI Out is accepted but doesn't provide any sound at all.

   When I try two ... well, when I load all four into the tools|options-Midi right-hand-side box I can get any three in, and the last one of either the Midi Mapper or the AWE 64G MIDI Synth [620] "won't open".  It seems that I can have any combination provided that it doesn't include both Midi Mapper and AWE 64G MIDI Synth.  And no, I don't understand what Rules are being applied here! 

   So: if for two staves I use both Midi Mapper and the awful Creative Music Synth - one for one staff, the other for the other - I can set up the two staves each to use channel 1.  And then when I play the music - two staves, same pitch of note, different instruments - yes, indeed, you're absolutely right: I get two sounds.  Hurrah!

   Incidentally, Noteworthy won't let me select channel numbers beyond 16: so I have 1-16 with one device, and 1-16 with the second device.

   But, as you say, if a Midi File prepared from this is played by someone without a Soundblaster ... or perhaps without the ability to use two devices at the same time ... then it's all to no purpose.  And that, of course, is going to be the problem.

   And worse: as Lawrie says, Tina has in the past suggested that when 2 voices on one channel have the same note but of different durations, simply mute the shorter one ... nothing gets "cut off".  True, but for my purposes - making Rehearsal Files for Choirs - I need to be able to have each voice hearing its own note (short for one, long for the other).

   It's a bummer.  So far, the only thing I can think of is to key in the longer note as two shorter notes (the first of the value of the other voice's short note) slurred together.  The longer note will thus get started twice ... and though it will sound twice, at least the total sound will equal the intended length.  The trouble there, though, is that every such note has to be sought out and dealt with individually (whereas Rich's suggeston is at least "automatic" once it's been set up).

   Ah well; these things are sent to try us.  In this case I blame Elgar.

   MusicJohn, 06/Oct/06

214
General Discussion / Too many staves
   Too many staves

   I have a problem that in the past I've simply brushed under the carpet, but now ...now I need to deal with it.  Only, I don't know how.  Can anyone help?  It goes like this:-

   If you have two separate staves with the same channel (channel 1, say), and thus playing the same instrument (a horn, for example), and you place on them - one on one, the other on the other - two notes of the same pitch (middle C, for instance) starting at the same time but one lasting longer than the other (such as, one a crotchet, one a minim), the way midi operates is to send along the relevant channel a stream of command signals including "note on" and "note off" signals.  Unfortunately, because in this example the two are on the same channel, and of the same pitch, the "note off" signal for the shorter note also acts to turn off the longer note before it reaches its normal end.

   So the standard answer is to use different channels for the two staves, so that the midi signals go to two different places.

   Which is fine, except that I don't have enough channels!

   I am presently keying in Elgar's Dream of Gerontius, and essentially I require, all at the same time, 19 staves - 3 soloists, 4 semi-chorus, 4 First Choir, 4 Second Choir, and 4 orchestral (an expansion of the two-stave piano reduction).  Because in some sections they all sing or play together, I need all 19 staves at once.  And because they should all be able to sing/play something different, I need 19 instruments and 19 channels.  This, though, is not possible with my set-up; I have a single Soundblaster 64 Gold, giving me access to a single set of the standard General Midi 16 channels - of which Channel 10 is set aside for percussion sounds, so leaving me 15 channels to play with.

   I thought I would be able to cope by cheating, and giving my Choir 1 and Choir 2 the same four channels (and the same four instruments), and generally I seem to get away with this.  But just now and again it turns out that the Sops1 (for instance) are singing the same note, but shorter, as the Sops2 ... and so the Sops2 note gets cut off (when the Sops1 note ends) long before it actually should stop.

   That's my problem; does anyone have any ideas what I can do about it?

   MusicJohn, 05/Oct/06

215
General Discussion / Re: Playback Volume
   Hi, RoyMick.

   There are several places where volume is fixed (and I ignore your hardware and the gain of your Windows Volume Control, which must be OK otherwise you'd hear ... nothing).

   One is by the dynamics you write onto the staff (your musical wife will know about this; they range from ppp - extra pianissimo: very, very quiet - through mf - mezoforte; medium loud - to fff - very fortissimo; blow your socks off).  If you don't put any dynamics in on a staff Noteworthy defaults to ff - pretty loud.  The dynamics values control the "velocity" applied to the note - think of it as how hard you hit a piano key.

   Then there's the volume you find/enter by selecting a staff and pressing F2 - the Part Volume.  This is a number that ranges from 0 - zero - up to 127 - maximum.  You can set it, but if you don't it defaults to 127 - loudest.  The Part Volume controls the loudness of the note as it actually sounds - think of it as depressing the loud pedal (which in a piano both takes off the dampers and may also shift the hammers so they hit more strings [depressing the "soft" pedal applies dampers and shifts the hammers so they hit fewer strings]).

   There is also the intrinsic loudness of the chosen "electronic" instrument ... which very often changes over its range.  On my Soundblaster AWE Gold the church organ is rotten - all squeaky and pathetic at the upper end of the scale, and louder but breathy at the lower end.  As an experiment, on a single staff key in and play a set of scales starting as low as you like and going up and up to way over the top; you'll hear the quality, and the volume, change as you go.

   So, have a look at what you've got, and make sure everything is set properly.  And try different instruments - try a flute or whistle for the RH and LH, and a tuba, say, for the feet.

   MusicJohn, 25/Sep/06

216
General Discussion / Re: Noteworthy newsgroup?
Hi, Lawrie

How come most of the items that used to go in the Forum now go in the Newsgroup (to which, before today, I didn't belong ... I didn't even know about it)?

MusicJohn 21/Sep/06

217
General Discussion / Re: Limited Features when making Band/Orchestral Scores
   I use NWC 1.75 to do a lot of choral work; a typical instance is like the Choral number (13) "The Heavens are telling" in Haydn's "Creation", which - in the New Novello score - has three soloists singing with an SATB Chorus plus the two-staff piano reduction. 

   In the Novello score:-

   For the solo voices each staff has a first bar that has on its left a single line (the thin one that joins ALL the staves together); however, the staves' bar lines are NOT joined ('cos that would break up the "lyric" words positioned below the staves) - thus, they're "Standard".

   For the SATB Chorus, however, each staff has an orchestral left-hand first bar line - that is the "double" line (where the left hand bit is thicker than the thin right hand bit).  This extends over all the SATB staves, and the top and bottom ends of the thick line are bent over, rather like a staple, to "enclose" the staves.  Again, the staves' bar lines are NOT joined - thus, they're "Standard" even though the first bars are joined "orchestrally" on their left.

   The piano reduction staves are different.  These have upper and lower braces over the single thin line marking the left of the first bar, and the staves' bar lines extend from one staff to the other, so as to join up.

   Replicating this with NWC seems impossible, though I feel sure it ought not to be.  The "problem" with NWC in its present incarnation seems to be that although, as long as no staff is identified as orchestral, then all the staves are joined at the far left by a single, thin line, even if two staves are upper/lower grand staff staves ... neverthless as soon as any one staff is orchestral then they all switch to the double left hand line first bar format.  One would expect them to use this format only for those staves actually identified as orchestral, but no: they do it for all, regardless.  In a more general sense, one would expect to have total control over the line on the left hand side of the first bars in the set of staves, and - quite independently - total control over the bar lines in the body of each staff.

   This is, I think, what Phil Dixon wants, and perhaps what K.A.T. is advocating when he says he'd like

    Visual tab
                Style:    Upper Brace
                          Upper Bracket
                          Upper Brace and Bracket
                          Lower Brace
                          Lower Bracket
                          Lower Brace and Bracket
                          Standard
                          Orchestral
                          Open

    MusicJohn, 4/Sep/06
218
General Discussion / Re: Making notes Trill

Hi, Dskip.

I find that trills generally sound best if the notes are tripletised - and I usually start with a small chunk of "the" note itself, then a suitable number of tripletised shorter notes back and forth between one a semitone up and "the" note (the combination having the length of "the" note").

MusicJohn, 24/Jun/06
219
General Discussion / Re: Bizare behaviour
Going back to the beginning:-

First, if you give the staff an instrument that sounds all the time, like a clarinet, rather than one that sounds mainly when you hit the note, like a piano, you'll see that all the notes sound for their full lengths, whatever they're associated with.

Secondly, when you make a chord of a long and a short note, Noteworthy uses the short note to work out where the NEXT note should come.

Thirdly, bar lines are really an irrelevant feature of "modern" music.  Back in the early days they were not used at all (in 16th/17th Century madrigals as originally scored, for instance).

Fourthly, auditing bar lines is only meaningful when you have a time signature (which, if you don't put one in, is 4/4 by default).  In fact you can put bar lines wherever you want, or simply leave them all out; they have no real effect at all.

MusicJohn, 16/Jun/06
220
General Discussion / Re: Transposing treble to alto
   Hi, Eric

 Or to say the same thing in slightly different words - which I'd already written before seeing what Laurie had said:-

 The normal treble clef defines G (above middle C) to be the line - the second line up - the clef has its curly end round.  The normal bass clef has its round end blob on - and the two dots straddling - the second line down, and thus defines F (below middle C).  The alto clef defines middle C by where it has its middle recessed bit - on the middle line (third line up or down).  The tenor clef - the fourth one provided by Noteworthy - also has its similar recessed middle bit defining middle C ... but this time as the second line down.

   So: if, with the alto clef, a note is on the middle line - it's C - then to sound the same with the treble clef it has to go down six places, to the line below the bottom line.  Or, if, with the treble clef, a note is on the line below the bottom line - it's C - then to sound the same with an alto clef it must go UP six places, to the middle line.

   Thus, if a Midi File with alto clef notes is fed into Noteworthy, which only converts things to treble or bass cleffs, any thus-formed treble-clef notes must be moved up six places if you wish to replace the treble clef with an alto clef.

   OK?

   Music John, 24/Apr/06
221
General Discussion / Re: Mezzo-staccato
   I hope it will be worth adding the following general comments about note lengths.

   The default - no Performance Style at all at the start of a staff  - provides a long note chopped off just before the end.  You ought to get exactly the same note length when using any Performance Style except the ones that actually work - that is, legato and tenuto (which seem to be identical to my ears) and staccato.

   In order of "length", then:-

   The longest is legato/tenuto, which hold the note right up to the end (even with an instrument sounding a "continuous" note, such as a piccolo, you still get distinct notes, but that's because of the attack at the start of each).  Incidentally, the Performance Style "Help" files don't say that the Tenuto marking works, but it does.  Marking the note with the overhead line - the tenuto dash - gives, as expected, the same effect.  And not entirely unexpectedly, slurring a full length (tenuto etc) note doesn't make it any longer!  It might be nice if it automatically reduced the attack on the subsequent note, so as to enable the smoothing out of a run of notes, but it doesn't.

   Next in length, and a tad shorter, is the "No Style" default, or the effect given by any non-working Style (which you need if you've already set some working Style).  I tend to use Marcato, simply because that's what it sounds like.  Slurring such a note makes it effectively full-length (tenuto).

   Then, as Rick G says, there's the slurred staccato dot - the dot makes a staccato length, and the slur extends it a bit.  Interestingly, slurring a note that is staccato because of a Staccato marking does not have the same effect; instead, it provides what to me sounds exactly the same as a legato/tenuto note length.

   And shortest is the staccato note itself - made so either by a Staccato marking or by a staccato dot (dotting a Staccato note doesn't make it any more staccato).

   Voila.

   MusicJohn, 14/Apr/06
222
General Discussion / Re: Multiple Instruments on a Staff
  Hi.

  Milton said "Having a different instrument for each note on a staff (which by default in NWC is equivalent to a MIDI channel) is unique to MIDI channel 10, which is reserved for percussion instruments.  All the other 15 MIDI channels can play only a single instrument (patch) at a time, ....  You can change what instrument a MIDI channel plays over the course of a piece, but you cannot have more than one instrument simultaneously on any MIDI channel."
 
  That's not entirely true.  While it may not be terribly useful, it is possible to start one note by one instrument playing, and then while it's still playing start a second note by a second instrument, ... and so on.

  For example:  in a staff enter a crotchet rest/semibrieve "chord" using the default instrument for the staff, and then enter a crotchet rest/dotted minim "chord" immediately preceded by a MultiPoint Controller instrument change patch ... and then enter a crotchet rest/minim "chord" also immediately preceded by an MPC instrument change patch - and you'll get three different instruments on the same staff playing at the same time (clearly evident if you choose three differently-pitched notes)!

  I did once use this technique on a tied note extending across a barline:  the second bar contained notes for a second instrument; the tied note carried on sounding like the preceding bar's instrument.

  As I said, not terribly useful, but interesting.

  Regards,
  MusicJohn, 7/Apr/06


223
General Discussion / Re: grace notes and duration
  Hi, y'all.

  Let me add my tuppence worth.  My musical dictionary - The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, Michael Kennedy (Editor) - says quite a lot about both "acciaccatura" and "appoggiatura", and it's not exactly as people have proposed above.  I could quote it in full, but in summary ...

  "Acciaccatura" - the small-sized grace note with crossed stem (but only if it's a single note: if two or more then they are also known as double etc appoggiatura! sic) is the "crushed" (and so usually very short) note, and it can steal time either from the succeeding note (usually: this is what Noteworthy does) or - but only in special cases - from the preceding note.  Some of us would like Noteworthy to allow this latter as an alternative.

  "Appoggiatura" - another, but different, grace note, also known as a "leaning" note.  It can be small-sized (UNcrossed) or normal-sized, and takes LOTS of time from the succeeding note ... usually a half or (if the latter's dotted) two-thirds - or, if it's a tied note, ALL of it!  There are apparently rules about this, so Noteworthy could provide this feature as a second sort of grace note.  It would be this second sort where the playing time of the note was "matched" suitably to the following note ... as some of us have requested.

  There.  I hope that was a useful and interesting tuppence worth.

  MusicJohn, 7/Apr/06