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 - William Ashworth

1151
General Discussion / Re: Entering three note chords with individually timed notes
Cyril, the original poster hasn't kicked into this conversation since his/her first post, so we can't be sure; but I read the post as coming from a somewhat musically unsophisticated person. So I don't think he/she thinks about chords the same way you and I do. I don't even think these are really chords - I think they're separate voices sounding together, and 1611KJB thinks of them as chords because they are notes sounding simultaneously. I thought about breaking them out on three staves to emphasize their independence, but two of the voices move in parallel, so I stayed with two staves. We can't assume that everyone who uses NWC is a trained musician, and we have to take that into account when working out solutions to problems like these.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Have a very merry Christmas -

Bill
1154
General Discussion / Re: Overriding lyric standard rules
I compose; my wife plays computer games, does volunteer work, and wishes her husband would spend more time with her out in the Oregon mountains. But after forty years of marriage, I think she is beginning to understand: I love the mountains; I am driven by the music.

Have a very merry Christmas,

Bill
1155
General Discussion / Re: Overriding lyric standard rules
Rick, I went to the newsgroup and looked at the NWC version of Veni Emmanuel that you posted there. I'm blown away by the effort you put into it and by the various tricks you've been using to make the music look like a page from a standard hymnal. I'm not sure I'd have the patience. I'm even less sure that my wife would have the patience (to put up with me while I worked on it). My hat is off and my mouth is agape.

One quick question: I think I understand most of what you did, and why you did it on separate staves. But what is that bottom, empty staff there for?

Best of the season,

Bill
1156
General Discussion / Re: Overriding lyric standard rules
OK - now I get it. When I accompany a singer, I'm playing guitar, so I have only one staff to worry about....not an issue, there.

The Veni Emmanuel setting looks great. I've done some strophic multi-voice settings successfully, but they never look this good. I'll post this and then go visit the beta forum.

Cheers,

Bill
1157
General Discussion / Re: pause, and verse start
You can set NWC to play from the cursor position. Go to the [options] menu, choose the [MIDI] tab and set the [Play] dropdown box to "from insertion point." Now all you have to do is click on a staff at the point you want to begin playing and push the "play" button. As for a <pause> button: many of us have asked for this. It hasn't materialized so far, but who knows? It can't hurt to stick it on the wish list once again.
1159
General Discussion / Re: Boxmarks and the like
The key to making boxmarks (or any other object) align properly is that little gray diamond to the left of your arpeggio sign, which is the "anchor" for the arpeggio. Select it. You can now use <alt><enter> to bring up the properties dialog, choose the "expression placement" tab, and set "justification" to "right" and "alignment/placement" to "best fit." That will switch the sign to the other side of its anchor, backing it off the note. Now (with the arpeggio anchor still selected), hold down <cntrl><shft> and press the up and down arrows until the sign lines up vertically with the notes the way you want it to.

Hope this helps.....

Bill

<edit> In NWC2, the default anchor actually looks like an anchor. It can be changed to the diamond used in NWC 1.x, which I recommend.
1160
General Discussion / Re: Overriding lyric standard rules
Thanks, Rick - I see that....or maybe I don't. Are we talking about piano reductions of vocal scores? Normally, vocal parts are on separate lines from the piano part. Perhaps lyrics as cues for the accompanist? Or a different (better) way to write hymns?
1161
General Discussion / Re: Overriding lyric standard rules
I prefer Rick's method in general, although if the music is at all complex I think I would go with layers.

I'm curious, though, why it should be necessary to do this. In the circumstances I can think of where it might be appropriate - e.g., vocal descant above the main melody - I think one would want the syllables to match the lower line of music; and the appropriate way to indicate multiple notes on one syllable is usually a slur. Is there a reason that won't work here?
1162
General Discussion / Re: Windows Vista and Help files
Thanks for posting this link, Eric. I sent it to two of my sons-in-law who are IT professionals and found that one had "upgraded" back to WinXP several months ago and the other had traded in his Vista Ultimate box for a Mac. One of them added that scuttlebut says there is no demand for pirated Vista copies in places such as China where software piracy is common. It looks as though Microsoft has found its Edsel.

Cheers,

Bill
1163
General Discussion / Re: Whole Measure Rest alignment bug (Beta 2.22)
Agreed. Interestingly enough, if you include the clef and time sig in the upper staff of the first example, but leave the key signature out, the rests line up in the first and third bars but not in the second.

Bill

<edit> This is due to the absence of the key sig, so it would be a problem on every new system - not just with a forced system break.
1164
General Discussion / Re: Glissando
The short answer is no. The best way to do it is to use a hidden staff in conjunction with symbols from one of the user fonts (found in the Scriptorium).

Cheers,

Bill
1165
General Discussion / Re: question on staff sizes
You can count me among those who prefer to control the beaming ourselves. Beaming should ideally be done in a way that helps make the music clear to the performer, and an automatic loop can't take everything necessary to do that into account. It's not difficult if you remember to do it every few measures instead of waiting until you have the whole piece transcribed: highlight<cntrl><b> gets automatic after a while.

I also prefer the staff metrics where they have been moved to. Everything relating to font sizes is grouped in one spot, and there's a print preview button there as well so you can see what the impact of a change has been without committing to it all the way. As with everything new, there's a little learning curve, but I think once you get used to the changes from 1.7x you'll like most of them (if not all).

Cheers,

Bill
1166
General Discussion / Re: A question about lyric spacing.
One other thing re relating lyric syllables to notes: in NWC2, there is a check box in the "note properties" box to specify whether or not a note is supposed to have a lyric syllable attached to it. A good reason to upgrade if you haven't already done so....

Cheers,

Bill
1167
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato

Quote
Except for the very highest strings (which decay rapidly), a piano dampens strings when the key is released.

It's those upper strings on the piano (the undamped ones) I'm talking about, when I say the piano can't play legato without overlapping. It can't even play staccato without overlapping. Those high strings are set ringing through sympathetic vibration, and on a good piano they will continue to sound for a while after the dampers drop on the strings that were actually struck. Back in grad school, when I was making part of my living as a piano tuner, this used to drive me nuts, but it's a characteristic of good piano sound. A really good MIDI (not that I have one, but they do exist) will emulate this; hence, will continue to make a faint sound after a piano note cuts off. So - yeah. Legato fingering is possible without using the damper pedal (for you - not for me). But the undamped strings at the top of the range will still sound.

On the harp and the guitar, both of which I play, the strings are rarely damped except for special effects, so they both ring in the same manner as a piano with the damper pedal down - in the case of the harp, for quite a while. Whereas the cello....oh.

When you play a different note on the same string on a cello, you can get a true legato with no overlap. On that string. What I just now realized is that there are three other strings on the cello, and sympathetic vibration affects them, too. So what I said earlier about the piano (and the harp and the guitar) goes for the cello, as well. Perhaps not as much; but sound will continue. So the same good MIDI that emulates the sympathetic vibration on a piano (or a harp or a guitar) should do the same for a cello, and kicking the channel volume up will get that blip of sound. It's actually unavoidable, except for winds, isn't it? And even there, if you start thinking about the hall....

I don't think the string sounding after the bow is lifted is particularly relevant, though, except on open strings. The bow and the finger will both damp the string just sounded as they are lifted to make the next note. Of these, the finger is the better damper, and if the string player is any good, the finger is lifted after the bow. That particular string isn't going to be making any significant sound after the bow stops. The other strings are perhaps a different matter, and I stand corrected.

Ain't music fun?

Cheers,

Bill

1168
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato
Much better, Rick. Thanks.

In answer to your question: the patch is specific to the sound bank that came bundled with my Audigy II. I should have corrected it to GM before I posted - sorry. It's just that the GM bank that came with my Dell laptop is so awful that I don't even think about using it any more.

I see your point about separate channels - saw it the first time around - but it seems like overkill, especially since there isn't a way to change channels mid-staff (or at least I don't know of a way). Layers would work, of course. But so does the method I chose (see reply #2), and it's a bit easier to apply.

As for the volume change affecting the entire channel....well, yeah. Of course. Can legato notes connect without overlapping? Not on the piano, or the harp or guitar or....but on the cello, yes (in fact, they have to, if they're on the same string). If I ask my synth to act differently for a cello font than it does for a piano font, am I asking too much? I think that's an even call. I also think that NWC could be taught to play a cello like a cello, but I agree that it's a lot to ask and is likely to lead to program bloat, which I certainly don't want to encourage. So I'll join you in telling Eric that he doesn't need to bother with this one, at least until more pressing things are taken care of - which may be never.

Anyway, thanks again. I'll accept your designation of the problem as "subtle user error" (emphasis added) and just say

Merry Christmas once more,

Bill
1169
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato
I should add, Rick - I do appreciate your input (and Lawrie's) in helping to pinpoint where the problem lay. Thanks for doing that. It's exactly what I value this forum so highly for.

Best (and Merry Christmas again),

Bill
1170
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato
Lawrie, Rick is right - I was writing about him. You have never been anything but the perfect gentleman.

Rick, when I said "feedback welcome" I meant reasonably polite feedback. Yours was beginning to sound like b*****y.

We should all feel free to contribute to this forum without fearing that someone is going to jump down our throats for saying something they disagree with. No one here has perfect knowledge; we've all got a little bit of the pie. Some (you and Lawrie and Rob come to mind) have more than others, and I understand and appreciate that. But that doesn't give you the right to treat everyone else as if they know nothing. Lawrie and Rob never do. You have a disconcerting habit of slipping that direction. Not always....but sometimes. Sometimes worse than others.  This one was bad enough that I felt you should be called on it.

The behavior I started this thread for is not a "user error." It may not be the program's fault either - it may indeed be the hardware and/or the OS - but it isn't something I did wrong. Not unless you count buying the same soundcard that Lawrie (and several hundred thousand other people) did as wrong. I wrote something musically correct which became incorrect someplace between my screen and my speakers. Maybe it can't be addressed by NWC, but I think that's Eric's job to decide, not yours or mine.

OK - truce. This thing has been blown way out of proportion. Let's just get back to work and wish each other Merry Christmas.

Cheers and feliciations,

Bill
1171
General Discussion / Re: Trills
Go to the page setup dialog (that's the "open book" icon in the button bar, or you can access it from the file menu). Click on the "contents" tab. You'll see a bunch of check boxes, in two columns, one labeled "groups" and the other labeled "visible parts." Uncheck the box in the "visible parts" column corresponding to the staff you want to hide. That staff will disappear from your screen and from the printout, but it will still sound (unless you mute it, but that's a different topic).

All best,

Bill
1172
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato
Thanks for the input, Lawrie. I'm using the same hardware you describe (Audigy II ZS) and the results are - well, interesting. Playing the clip as you modified it, sometimes I get a tick, sometimes not. So the problem is probably hardware-dependent, or possibly an interaction between the hardware and the OS, which may send commands from the program to the hardware in a different order at different times depending on the clock state and the activity of other programs.

So, in a sense, you're right, Rick: it isn't the program. Except that the program should send signals that the hardware and the OS cannot misinterpret. How many million computers out there are running Audigy II soundcards on XP? Is it really the best solution to say, "well, tough, buddy, you should have bought a different soundcard"....?

You and I and Lawrie can do what we've been doing here - analyze the problem, discover the cause, and find a workaround. But we represent a small minority of computer users. The vast majority buy a computer, a soundcard, and software that they have heard is dependable and expect them to work well together. If they don't, they haven't a clue how to fix it, except to call one of us. For them, this is a bug, no matter how it looks to you. And no matter how strident and brusque your voice is when you describe it that way. So can you dial it down a little?

I don't know if this is something NWC can do something about. Eric hasn't weighed in (and isn't likely to), so none of us know if he'll try. There are some possibilities. One idea that comes to mind quickly is to wait a tick between instructions at some point in the program, to allow the OS and the sound card to catch up: properly done, this would be unnoticable to the user. Would it solve the problem? I dunno. The point is that there are some possible fixes from the programmer's end. Most of them classify as kludges, but honestly, isn't it better for the programmer to use a kludge than to force the user to make one up himself? Or herself?

Anyway, that's the view from here. Using a text dynamic and kicking the staff volume up later works, so the original problem has become moot. The questions that remain are (1) is this a bug? and (2) should it be fixed (no matter what it's called)? I think the answers are yes and yes. You are certainly free to disagree, as long as you do so pleasantly.

All best of the season,

Bill

1173
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato

Quote
NoteWorthy is doing exactly what you are telling it to do.

Ain't true. I'm not telling it to hold the previous note until the staff volume changes - I'm telling it to change the staff volume on the next note. It's academic, in a sense, because there's an easy workaround. But it is unexpected and unwanted behavior, which is the definition of a bug.

Oh, my. Let's not get into this again. ;-)

Cheers,

Bill
1174
General Discussion / Re: MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato
You're right, Rick - it sounds like a pizzicato attack (at least, on my system), but it appears to be the E held until after the staff volume is normalized by the p at the beginning of the following measure. If I take the slur off, it disappears. If I add a legato command, it reappears. Tenuto, same thing.

It could be a result of the way SB cards handle legato: I'm running an SB Audigy II in the PCMCIA slot of my laptop. Whatever the cause, I think it classifies as a bug. I'm not sure that there's an easy way to get rid of it, though. To get the legato, the E has to be held until the following B begins. As a kludge, I can enter the p as text and adjust the staff volume in conjunction with the rest later in that measure. But that workaround won't be available if something like this comes at the beginning of a long legato passage. I dunno.

- Bill
1175
General Discussion / MIDI mystery: phantom pizzicato
When I play the following clip:

Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Instrument|Name:"Viola"|Patch:41|Bank:0,0|Trans:0|DynVel:10,30,45,60,75,92,108,127|Pos:12
|DynamicVariance|Style:Sforzando|Pos:-9
|Dynamic|Style:f|Pos:0|Visibility:Never
|Text|Text:"arc."|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|MPC|Controller:vol|Style:Linear Sweep|TimeRes:Quarter|SweepRes:1|Pt1:0,127|Pt2:2,45|Pos:15|Wide:Y
|Note|Dur:Half,Slur,Accent|Pos:-4
|Bar
|Dynamic|Style:p|Opts:Volume=127|Pos:-10
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-7
|Instrument|Name:"Pizzicato strings 1 (solo)"|Patch:51|Bank:127,0|Trans:0|DynVel:10,30,45,60,75,92,108,127|Pos:6
|Text|Text:"pizz."|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-7
|Rest|Dur:4th
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-5
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

I get a phantom pizzicato note, forte, at the beginning of the 2nd measure. It's not there if I play the second measure by itself. If I remove the MPC, it also disappears. Some kind of a bug in the MPC? Do others get this behavior, or is it unique to my sound card?

Feedback welcome....

Bill
1176
General Discussion / Re: Adding piano accompaniment to existing SATB score
To add a bit to Lawrie's reply:

  • You can also get to the staff properties dialogue by hitting F2 any time the cursor is in the staff you want to modify; or, if you prefer to use a mouse, by clicking on "staff" on the menu bar and then selecting "staff properties."
  • You mentioned adding the accompaniment as a separate group. If you meant a separate visual group on the page, Lawrie's reply is all you need. If you want the accompaniment to be a separate NWC group (which is useful if you want to print just the staff or just the accompaniment), you do that from the "general" tab in the staff properties dialogue box. For the first staff in a new group, select the "group" dropdown box and type the new group name in it; for subsequent staves, the new name will appear in the dropdown list when you select the group box. You can control whether or not groups appear in the printout (or on the screen) using the "contents" tab of the page setup dialogue (the open book icon on the button bar; also found in the files menu). Be aware that staves that don't show still sound when you hit "play."

Hope this helps....
1177
General Discussion / Re: System break anomaly (Beta 2.22)
Well, I thought you would know the workarounds, but I thought others reading this thread might not, so I went ahead with a brief explanation :-)

And you are right that checking an object for duration in the way you suggest would fix the problem. But I'm not sure you're right that a sysbreak command being ignored "under certain circumstances" is a bug. I think Lawrie is correct that those circumstances are limited and appropriate.

At any rate, a change in the lower limit of the extra note spacing parameter would certainly make the whole issue a lot easier to deal with.

1178
General Discussion / Re: System break anomaly (Beta 2.22)
A system "do NOT break"....I like that, Lawrie. I also like the idea of being able to adjust adjust spacing manually. The current Note Properties interface could take care of that - we just need to be able to use minus numbers in the "extra note spacing" wheel.
1179
General Discussion / Re: What is the default dynamic?
Actually, NWC dynamic markings and dynamic variances affect the velocity, not the volume. The only ways to change the volume are to set it in Staff Properties or to insert an MPC.

As for what we are talking about, the original thread was talking about MIDI, and I'm glad to see it brought back to that; but Matta's post talked about general music performance, or at least that's what I assumed in my reply. I believe Rick assumed the same thing.

I like your idea of setting the staff volume to 110 to allow some headroom (that will take care of the occasional ffff). But your method seems a bit awkward to me. You can set the MIDI properties for each staff in the Staff Properties box - including resetting the default velocity for dynamics on that staff. Wouldn't that do the job without having to resort to MPCs? Except, of course, for the ffff, which will still have to be inserted as a text object and an MPC.

Cheers,

Bill
1180
General Discussion / Re: System break anomaly (Beta 2.22)
A quick check of this, Rick, indicates that it seems to be a function of the length of the previous system. If you shorten the second measure of your example (I simply removed the final group of 16ths), then it prints properly. You've created a separate measure holding only the key sig, and NWC doesn't think there's room enough to attach that measure to the first system. I don't think it examines the contents of the measure at all.

The ideal solution to this problem would have NWC check key sigs, time sigs and clefs at the beginning of each system and attach them to the end of the previous system automatically if there is a change at the system break, adjusting measure lengths as needed. As is, we have to do this ourselves. My solution, kosher or not, is to always place any key/time/clef change before the barline rather than after it. That way the courtesy key/time/clef is placed by the program as a matter of course. It doesn't place a barline before it, but that could be done by placing a barline as a text object and making the real barline invisible. I haven't done that, but I may try it in the future.

Cheers,

Bill
1181
General Discussion / User Tool Folder
Quote
Hey Microsoft - it ain't broke - stop fixing it!

....and don't we all wish that Microsoft was listening....

Vista is the best reason I've seen to switch to Linux, and I'd like to thank Eric for keeping NWC compatible with WINE (as explained in another thread), because when I have to replace my XP laptop I am very likely to go the Linux route and I really don't want to lose this program. Personally, I still miss DOS. Bought a PC instead of a Mac so I could work under the hood - now they won't let me get my hands dirty...<sigh>...

Bill
1182
General Discussion / Re: What is the default dynamic?
I concur with Rick. Context is the most important guide to dynamic level - even more than the dynamics chosen by the composer, which will give you the relative dynamics within the piece but are not necessarily a good guide to the absolute level the piece should be played at in any particular situation.

Bill
1183
General Discussion / Re: another modest proposal
Well, perhaps storing orientation should be an option. That's the one thing I really need to have stored. But a "save orientation" checkbox on the editor options tab could take care of that (I'd suggest putting it in the printer setup dialog box, but it looks like it''s made from boilerplate code, which might be hard to modify).
1184
General Discussion / Re: Beam angle descrepancy (Beta 2.21)
Granted - the barline here takes up part of the space that had been occupied by the accidental, pushing the accidental to the right. OK. But that wasn't the situation here. No accidentals. Notes held across the barline in most of the parts (and all of the parts with missing barlines, which is part of how they went missing). No excuses. Anyway, we've determined that the problem was caused by the change in print quality, so the barline is pretty much a dead horse. ;-)

Bill
1185
General Discussion / Re: Beam angle descrepancy (Beta 2.21)
Well, I'd understand how adding barline could bump a measure off the end of the page if the added barline weren't directly under an already-present barline. That's what this situation was: barlines present for soprano, flute, clarinet, harp....right down through the first violin, then absent from there to the bottom of the score. Don't ask. And yes, I've had the same experience of changing a note to a rest and thus creating a change in flow. Or adding a dynamic with the "preserve width" box unchecked, which theoretically shouldn't add any width at all to the measure it lands in....

Anyway, thanks for the input Rick. I'm glad I'm not the only one finding that lower print quality actually increases print size. It isn't rounding errors: if you compare my two printed page fives, you can see that the print is significantly larger at the lower print quality setting. The difference is measurable. With staff metrics set to 14 points, a five-line staff is exactly 5mm wide (top to bottom) in Fast Normal. It's 5.5mm wide in Fast Draft. Go figure.

Cheers,

Bill
1186
General Discussion / Re: Beam angle descrepancy (Beta 2.21)
OK - never mind. I found the problem. I'm still perplexed as to why it should happen this way, but it appears to be the printer.

There was one small unnoticed change between printings. For the first printing, I set the print quality to "fast normal." When I reprinted the replacement page a few minutes later, the printer had reset itself to "fast draft," which is its default. (I hadn't turned off either the computer or the printer between the two printings, but I had exited NWC and then re-entered it, and that had triggered the reset, which in hindsight I should have expected.) The different measure counts per page resulted from the reset. This behavior is faithfully rendered by Print Preview: if the printer is set to fast draft, Preview shows pagination equivalent to the first column in my earlier message; if set to fast normal, it shows pagination equivalent to the second column.

So NWC is off the hook. But I still don't understand why increasing the print quality should squeeze more measures onto the page at exactly the same font settings. Measurements in points should be unchanged by increasing the print density. Any theories?

Bill
1187
General Discussion / Re: Beam angle descrepancy (Beta 2.21)
Would it were that simple, Eric. The printer drop-down box on the printer setup screen in NWC says "HP Photosmart C3100 Series" and that is exactly what I'm printing to. Specifically, I'm using a C3180, connected to a Dell laptop (600m) running WinXP and the current NWC2 beta (2.21). I changed nothing in the file between print jobs, beyond adding barlines between the same pair of measures in three staves where I'd accidentlally left them out (this is in a nine-stave piece, and the other six staves had the barline already, so spacing wasn't affected).

I remember being a little surprised when my score printed out at 17 instead of 18 pages, but as everything looked OK, I didn't question it - until I tried to print a second p. 5.

Any further ideas?

Bill
1188
General Discussion / Re: Beam angle descrepancy (Beta 2.21)
I'm going to partially hijack this topic to describe a related problem (sorry, Rick).

I just finished printing a score. Noticed a typo on p. 5, so I reprinted it. The new p. 5 had a different range of measures on it. So I checked the full score against the print preview. Here's the result:

Page #    Starting Measure
         Print Prev   Printed copy
 1      1                1
 2      12               13
 3      23               25
 4      33               36
 5      44               47
 6      55               59
 7      66               71
 8      77               82
 9      87               92
10      96              101
11      104            110
12      111            118
13      119            128
14      129            138
15      138            150
16      149            160
17      160            173
18      172

(Should have created a table in this message instead of pasting one in from EditPad, but you get the idea.)

Note that by the p. 14, the printed copy has lapped Print Preview and is a full page ahead. This was printed in landscape mode, but that shouldn't make any difference.

It appears that there are more discrepancies between Print Preview and what comes out of the printer than just the slant of beams.

Cheers (I think),

Bill
1190
General Discussion / another modest proposal
I'm currently preparing a score that needs to be printed in landscape mode, which is reminding me that NWC doesn't store the printer setup for individual scores. Each time I come back to this piece, I have to reset my printer to landscape before printing (or viewing in print preview). If I forget and hit "print" without doing this, there is a lot of wasted effort, a lot of wasted breath, and a lot of rather blue air around my workspace ;-). Has this been a problem for others? It seems like a simple fix that would create a lot of good will for a small amount of programming time.

Cheers,

Bill
1194
General Discussion / Possible "Contents" dialogue box improvement
Hi all -

I'm currently working on a score with nine staves in five groups. In order to concentrate on problems in individual instruments, I am unchecking all but one or two staves in the Contents dialogue box, returning to the full score occasionally to see how the line I'm working on fits in with the rest. It would help me immensely if the Contents box included check all and uncheck all options. Would this be useful to others as well?

Cheers,

Bill
1195
General Discussion / Re: NEWBIE
Lawrie has hit the nail on the head (if you hang around this forum long, you will soon discover that Lawrie is quite good at that).

In addition to his suggestions re places on the Web to learn music theory, I am going to suggest a very old book: Harmony, by Walter Piston. This was first published in 1941 and was the standard beginning music theory textbook in must colleges and universities in the U.S. for at least the next 25 years. I still think it's the best out there, especially for rank beginners who are struggling with how to read notes, let alone put them together, which I take it is your current situation.

Two more suggestions: first, if you live near a college or university, you might see if you can audit a beginning music theory class. Second, don't be afraid to post specific questions to this forum. A number of us are quite well versed in theory and are happy to share what we know.
1196
General Discussion / Re: pc sound system broken
It will help us help you if we know what operating system you have. Pre-USB and early USB operating systems (Win 98 & earlier) have fewer options than later OS's. If you are running XP or Vista with a free USB 2.0 port, there are more possibilities.

And I see Lawrie is trying to troubleshoot the problem with your current sound system, which is also a good idea. If the headphone jack is physically broken, you have a different problem than if it simply stopped working. Maybe you won't have to spend any money at all.
1198
General Discussion / Re: Spacing bug (Beta 2.21) after Special Ending
That's weird. A special ending is an object added to the staff, and if anything, you would expect it to add spaces, not subtract them.

What may be happening here (just a guess) is that NWC sets the distance from the special ending object to the note, and then during printing it moves the special ending back so that it sits properly over the barline - bringing the note with it.

In any event, it is clearly a bug.

- Bill
1200
General Discussion / "Audit Enharmonics" tool: some possible improvements
I'm starting a new thread on this subject (which came up in the "silly notation" thread) because I think the Audit Enharmonics tool is among the least competent parts of NWC - if not the least competent. It isn't needed very often, so most of us probably think of it as a low priority for upgrading. But if a new user needs it, uses it, and reads the output critically, he or she is not very likely to become an old user. So, in that sense, fixing it - and thereby raising the correctness of the program's output, and its esteem among new users - might be considered critical.

The current rules the tool operates under seem to be two:

  • if a note is spelled as an accidental but there is a natural enharmonic equivalent (e.g., B# = C; Gbb = F), substitute the natural equvalent.
  • substitute sharps for all flats, unless the music is in a flat key. In that case, substitute flats for all sharps.

These rules are general approximations only, and are wrong about half the time.

As Rick G. pointed out in the "silly notation" thread, analysing the score to find the functionally correct accidental in each case is beyond what we can expect NWC to do; even if accomplishable, it would blow the small size and rapid functionality of the program out of the water, and these are things we treasure about it. This doesn't mean, however, that the enharmonics tool isn't improvable. Here are two simple additional rules, which might be applied in a second pass:

  • if the next note is a tone or a semitone higher, use a sharp; if it is a tone or a semitone lower, use a flat.
  • if an accidental will cause the next note to require a natural, use its enharmonic equivalent.

These two new rules would take care of most of the tool's problems. They would also bring in a few of their own, as they are not perfectly reliable in all cases. Because of that, I offer a  third suggestion:

  • give the tool an "ask before changing" option.

This last suggestion doesn't depend on the other two, and would be an excellent place to start.

I welcome others' comments, criticisms, and suggestions.

Cheers,

Bill