I urgently need (well ... I would like to have) a tool that creates single voices from chords ... and I'll write it myself (already started), but I found that I have a few questions:
a) I write it in PHP, because I also wrote my previous tool in it - but I must say I hate the language and am not fluent in it (whatever here is the cause and what the effect, I do not know). Which other language could I use which gives me a sensible object model for items, like the one in lib/nwc2clips.inc? (yes, I could write my own string splitter - but I rather would not).
b) What I need is actually a little more than single voices: I want to extract some voices from chords, according to some heuristics (e.g., in a chord with 3 notes, "take voices 1 and 2" will select the upper most two notes, whereas "voices -1 and -2" will take the lowermost; and with rules for what to take when there is chord with 2 notes or a single note; etc...). So, I sometimes have to rewrite RestChords to Chords or Notes or Rests ... and for that, I would like to have an overview over the options I have to copy into the new object. In the attachment is my current draft of such a model - but: Is there one documented and more complete somewhere around?
c) And last but not least: Is there already such a tool around - or something near it which I could modify according to my ideas?
I've wanted to write something about the "big picture" for some time now - the discussion about enharmonic audit has finally pushed me to do so. Maybe it stirs up some discussion - but maybe, we get some answers or thoughts from the "Noteworthy product drivers".
With 2.75's objects, big possibilities have arrived - as can be seen from the contributions. I have now gotten my most important wish via the "CueHeads" object, and I feel now more confident that I can create the scores I wish with acceptable effort. However, we have now, I believe, a quite foggy vision of what Noteworthy Composer actually is or wants to be. With version 2.51, I thought I would offer my hand to create a German version - I find the product so much better and easier to use than other competing "not so high cost" score programs (Cappella is the main one used here in Germany) that this seemed a worthwhile undertaking.
However, when I saw 2.75, I dropped that idea: The reason is that NWC now suddenly looks like a "hodge-podge of features," which might be hard to explain. And with a currently non-existing German [added later - sorry] user community (save for me and maybe a few others), explaining various tricks to a typical user might be hard. Here are some examples:
CueHeads is great, but why can't you choose smaller heads (maybe even of the fixed 70% size) from the standard notehead menu? The "shape" noteheads are, certainly, much less useful than cue noteheads ...
The slurs have been an ongoing topic for years - now we have even more of them in objects (which, as far as I can see, do not interact in the standard way with lyrics), but still the standard ones.
The recent discussion about a "better enharmonic audit" also shows that there are tools around that try to improve NWC functions, but run into problems because at least some users feel unhappy about the double built-in vs. user tools world (and now, I would believe, even more so about the three-pronged built-in vs. user tools vs. objects world).
The "extra note spacing" is still restricted to integral (and therefore too coarse) values, but there are tricks with empty-head, empty-stem grace notes that move notes a little bit.
And there are, it seems, a host of other spacing tricks which are totally unobvious to the typical user.
Striked-through grace notes ("Vorschläge") require a combination of built-in grace notes and a user plugin, instead of a simple checkbox on some grace note options.
Instead of considering all these features and their problems, the question behind all this is, in my opinion, more fundamental: Namely, "Where does NWC want to go?" (with regards to score printing - there is another topic which is playback, which I'll briefly touch below).
Possible answers to the "quo vadis" question are, in my opinion:
(A) NWC is now, and remains an environment for plugins where some interested people can provide many good solutions to various problems of score printing; with the assumption that users will work on their understanding of these plugins (be it user tools or objects).
Some tools introduce new functionalty (e.g., CueHeads).
Some replace existing NWC functions. When they are (much) better (more versatile, with better results, etc.), they should become "best practice", i.e. override built-in functions "almost always" - see the new copyright and other PageTxt objects, which can do (with quite some hassle for the setup) everything NWC can do and more. The same might be true for the various slur solutions.
(B) NWC continues to strive to be a compact (and also in the future very affordable) and efficient (from the point of the user) program. In this case, the "hodge-podge" resulting from the user tool and (NWC and user provided) objects is, in my opinion, unacceptable. E.g., looking for "slurs" in the documentation would not give average users a good solution, because better objects exist outside the core program. Looking for "cue heads" wouldn't give users a solution at all, because the only way to get them is via the CueHead object; similarly, users would not find out how to print repeated copyright notes. But, to give objects and - to a lesser extent? - user tools their credit (very much so!), the "community approach" to improving the functions might be part of a valuable and - to say it loud - cost-effective process which, after some users have praised a certain plug-in (user tool or object), might lead to a quick integration into the Noteworthy program, thereby using (a) the knowledge about what is a valuable addition; and (b) the algorithmic knowledge in the plug-in (if the author of the plug-in agrees).
(C) NWC strives to become a feature-complete program, which can do e.g. everything along the lines of Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars." For the first time, this seems to be possible - but the big question is whether NWC actually should try to accomplish this. New feature blocks that would be needed for this would probably be concepts for "multi-score printing" (printing of large works consisting of several movements or pieces or "sections"), which would probably require that almost every option could be enabled/disabled per section. I fear that such a "can-do-all vision" would lead to (a) increased pricing - which would probably kill NWC because there are other companies and programs out there occupying the "next higher price range" successfully - and (b) worse usability, because many more options would become necessary.
My heartful hope is that (B) is the way to go. This might lead to the effect that each new NWC version has "no new functionality at all", because all which is in (say) 2.85 already was provided by 2.75 plug-ins. Yet, the new 2.85 would be much better integrated and hence still worth it.
Finally, a few remarks on playback: Almost all of us NWC users need MIDI file export, i.e., "rendering the score" into a useful MIDI file. My attempts to think about how to play trills in another thread lead me to the conclusion that also there, some features are missing. For example, grace notes currently take their time off the following note (start playing on the beat), whereas in many cases (since 1820 or so), playing them as a "Vorschlag" - before the beat - would be preferable. Also here, one can ponder whether (a) the necessary features should be included in NWC; or (b) they are provided by plugins (e.g. the Trills object). In contrast to the "score features", I would opt here for "plugin-ing:" Those users who do not want plugins can do everything by meticuously writing hidden "playback staffs". Other users can use plugins that render printed score features like trills or arpeggions into acceptable or even perfect sounds.
Returning to the overall picture: With (B) above - i.e., NWC continues to try to integrate new features into the core program, even if they are provided satisfactorily or even perfectly via plugins -, I might again be tempted to create that German version (if this is technically possible at all) - i.e., continue to consider NWC as the great tool it has been for me for the last 15 years!
A few months ago, I had three wishes. One of them was already possible back then (tightening the notes somewhat by spacers), one is possible with the PageTxt/Maestro object (copyright on each page).
One is still open: Small staffs.
And I have a new (last?) one: Grace notes that are striked through. Although it is possible to create them with careful placement of a dash (text) over the grace note, this is a nuisance; and almost impossible for grace chords or multiple grace notes that would need a longer or differently angled strike-through line. Striked-through grace notes have been a standard musical notation "since ever," so I would very much like to see them ...
Sometimes, I want/have to import MIDIs that play "everything" (a choir arrangement; or a piano piece) on a single channel. Usually, there are of course overlapping notes in the different voices in such pieces, which NWC cannot import with correct length - it cuts off some notes (see attached example MIDI and import). I would be happy with a quite crude import which would place notes on quite a few staffs with simple heuristics - I would have to copy around snippets between staffs afterwards, of course, but at least the input would be correct. I even thought about writing a (more or less) simple tool reading in MIDI and producing nwctxt ... but before I do that, I try to summarize my question as follows:
Is there some facility for importing MIDI which
guarantees to keep the note lengths as in the original MIDI and
puts the notes into staffs "somewhat reasonably" (so that one can copy "longer" stretches of notes and move them around in after-editing)?
After running the upgrade exe, I found that on my Win7 laptop, the two links to NWC on the desktop and in the program folder structure had vanished. I could easily repair this ("copy as link" to both places as admin), but others may see this as more of a problem ...
As a long time user of NWC, I'm very happy with it - I use it to compose music (without a connected MIDI keyboard - I mostly think in musical notation), arrange for our choir and for crank organs, sketching snippets in forums, and rewrite clumsy parts for easier playing or singing.
Many features that others may need I am happy without: This keeps the tool small and efficient. And I'm not very concerned about the perfect beauty of the result - for example, I had no great complaints about those slurs which curve "in interesting ways".
But there are three things I'd dearly need, in descending order of importance:
1. Smaller scales - almost all instrument parts need either a few stretches or full staffs of cue notes. Currently, I use normal staffs with diamond note heads (which look a little bit like smaller note heads). But a vertical scaling is very much needed.
2. Finer-scaled "Extra Note Spacing" that takes tenths instead of only integral values; and negative values up to maybe minus 1. Sometimes, in a little more complex chords assembled on 2 layered staffs, just shifting over a note "a little bit" would make the chord really readable. And, sometimes, I'd like to push notes together a little bit, usually in a scale or a repetitive acc. pattern: This might save that unncessary fourth page where just 2 measures spill over, and still keep the score perfectly readable.
3. Printing fixed text on each page would also be great - for copyright purposes, but more for title and instrument remarks. I usually prepare all the different printouts (instruments, singers, conductor's score) by creating PDFs on my laptop during my (train) commute. Then I print all of the PDFs together - so inserting different paper is no option. But maybe I have to look into some batch tooling that adds footers into PDFs easily.
If I got these features (only two, maybe only the first), I'd happily pay for a new complete license - NWC has paid itself over so many times that I would not complain about another bunch of $ (or €) for that!
I have written a small tool that helps to visualize notes on a system that are outside a given range.
I'd like to post a link to its description and download area here - however, I get a message that I cannot post links here ... so if someone is interested, please leave me a PN (and if anyone could tell me how to "upgrade" my membership so that I can post links, that would be nice).
By using the nwc2clips PHP library, the tool handles arbitrary clefs adn accidentals; and can visualize multiple ranges at one time by chaning note colors or noteheads. In my scores, I usually use two ranges,
one smaller "convenient" (for singing or playing) range
and one larger "full" range, which can be played or sung with some effort.
The tool thus helps to find quickly areas where one might have to revise an arrangement for easier playing/singing.
If the tool is useful for anybody, and/or if anyone would like to remark on it, point out bugs or possible improvement, I'd be happy!
Sorry if this has been asked before ... I just upgraded to 2.51, and now there is no place where I can set the template folder. Under Tools/Options/Folders, I see only 5 entries:
Song Files Backup Files Config Files Auto Save/Recovery Instrument Trees
As my Templates reside at a specific place, I'd need to point there ...
