create a visible, muted staff with correct notation for reading and a hidden staff(staves) with the correct notation for playback
This is the method I prefer, as I do this with all of the other instruments as well (you know, for turns, rips, glisses, etc.). And
Quote
Layer staves that have transpositions assigned to allow correct note placement AND playback - this is harder and maybe not as effective.
doesn't allow an eighth-note snare note and an eighth-note cymbal note to be beamed together (and there were some other problems that I can't recall at present [dang holiday stress...]).
Well, thanks for all of the suggestions. None of them work for my current situation though (it's complicated...). I'll just have to retune a few files myself (if I can get them done in time).
Quote
...mine can be set to 6 or 7 different preset tunings...
Boy, that would be nice for some of my other situations...
At home, Audigy SE (but I don't know what I'll have at school). Although I don't see it on list of cards capable of microtuning, I can do all sorts of pitch changes.
Quote
Synthfont also provides the option to retune each of the 12 tones.
Will this make it portable (meaning can I play it on any of the computers at school [that we can't make changes to])?
I'm looking for Western music. Need to demonstrate, say, a Bach fugue (or some pre-Bach work) with a temperament other than Equal. I'm hoping to find something with "the wrong tuning" that I could then "fix" [no, I'm not prejudiced against unequal temperament...] so that the students can hear the difference. If the school had more pianos and more money, I could get my piano tuner to give me three (or more) different tunings, but alas, education doesn't receive enough government funding...
Does anyone know of any NWC files that use tunings other than Equal Temperament (Marpurg, Kirnberger, Pythagorean, etc.)? I've searched the Forum and the Scriptorium, but my search skills must be somewhat lacking...
I too think the options would be useful. I haven't needed it often, but the times that I do need it and it's not there... (I've always said "Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.") Oh yeah, we should also have Reverse All, as in the mute dialogue. I use hidden-aural staves and visible-muted staves most of the time, so switching between the two groups would be much improved.
*Sorry for the slow responses lately - [glow=red,2,300]The Hectic[/glow] has returned, with a vengeance.
Quote
...NWC has an "Audit Enharmonic Spelling" tool that is primarily used (in my experience) to correct accidentals following staff transposition. This tool has a strong bias toward sharps and naturals, and (again, in my experience) tends to get about half the accidentals wrong, from a functional standpoint. After a transposition: do you use this tool and then correct the wrong accidentals by hand? Do you correct the wrong accidentals by hand from the beginning, without bothering with the tool? Or do you simply never use the "Transpose Staff" tool, and thus never need the "Audit Enharmonic Spelling" tool at all?
I find this tool annoying when using pitches that have been entered incorrectly (by whatever means) because the incorrect relationships between the notes are maintained after using it. If the pitches were entered correctly, the tool is fine. An older incarnation (V1.5?) seemed not to like double-flats and -sharps so with some creative transpositions (+1, +1, -3, +1 for instance), any incorrect pitches could be changed to properly fit the line (the New Key Preferences still cannot compensate for this...). So I guess I could say that I correct the wrong accidentals by hand from the beginning, as I am enterning the pitches, so that after using the tool the correct relationships between the notes are maintained.
Quote
...flutes balked at 6 flats...
Boy, do I have stories...
Quote
...when the vocalist chops beats from cadences or skips entire phases.
even more stories...
p.s. When I type a lengthy response, I will copy the whole thing before pressing Post or Preview, just in case something happens...
how get an organ sound without an organ - the section where the sax has the tune, and one piccolo is a 12th above, and the other piccolo is a 17th above, simulating a mutation stop on a pipe organ.
Isn't it a horn with celeste playing "fifths" above and piccolo a 17th above? Don't have a score handy, but that's what's in my memory...
...the enharmonic spelling of the low Eb...was probably "correct" because I was in a sharp key signature, but a competent copyist would never have written that, because it is simply never encountered.
Correct is correct. If copyists simply write Ef because Dd "is simply never encountered," then they are perpetuating a lack of education.
Quote
...we should always keep in mind what the musician doesn't expect. If you write something that isn't frequently encountered, it will surely disrupt the quality of a performance, particularly if you're using a sub who is sightreading.
What if the sub who is sightreading is accustomed to correct notation and not "the easy notes?" I've come across such passages as (in the key of Ef) Be Bf Be Fd Af Bf Be. That's hard to read. It's as bad as
Quote
playing a run in a flat key, but encounter sharps as accidentals; or, in a sharp key, flats for accidentals.
Those two pieces are good examples. My orchestra happens to be performing both of those pieces next weekend. Many of the younger/less experienced players seem to understand instruments that they don't play a bit better than they did before we started rehearsing. We also are playing a piece that was well-composed but not-so-well-orchestrated. A good example of what not to do...
I have been working on a font that has straight and squiggly lines, ascending and descending, with intervals from a second up to two octaves, with widths varying from very steep to extremely extended (two measures long). Due to my two HD crashes this summer, I am WAY behind on this project, but when I get "back to life," I'll try to finish it and post it here (unless someone else has also been working on it...).
Wow! He already gets it. That quickie explanation from last week along with a week on his own to fool around with the idea seems to have done the trick. The kid really amazed me at how well he understands this.
I'm asking this at all of the music forums I frequent. I just picked up a new student - nine years old, just started alto sax (he has been playing piano for five years). After nearly completing his first lesson, he asked "Why do all of the notes sound wrong?" I didn't know what he meant because all of the notes sounded correct to me, so I asked him what he meant and he couldn't elaborate. Finally he said, "That doesn't sound like a B." <sudden realisation> I walked over to the piano, played a D and asked him if he knew what it was, and he replied (as if it were totally obvious), "That's a D." I didn't have time for a good explanation, as my next student was coming in, but I told him quickly about absolute pitch and that I would explain more next week. I also tried to explain it to his father, but his English is not yet strong so I think he didn't quite get it. Is there a guide of some sort on how to work with a student with absolute pitch who's playing a transposing instrument? Any help is appreciated.
...orchestral braces overlap a grand staff, which I have never seen in any score I have read...
I see it all the time.
Quote
but I say leave it out.
NO! I've been wanting this for quite some time. And I do want total control over what goes where. And I want to be able to do it without layering. Also, the examples without any bracket are so old that the stems are on the wrong side of the heads, so...
Seems we've been discussing this for at least a year: https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5658.msg36766#msg36766 See Reply #3 in particular: It would be nice if we control over the Starting Bar, just as we have control over the Ending Bar: Staff Properties... General tab Starting Bar: Section Close Master Repeat Close Single Double Open (hidden)
Visual tab Style: Upper Brace Upper Bracket Upper Brace and Bracket Lower Brace Lower Bracket Lower Brace and Bracket Standard Orchestral Open
The last one would be for layered staffs for a single part.
I didn't get the "Sharpei" gag at first either, because here we pronounce it "Shar-PAY." A woman in my orchestra has one of these dogs - she has named it 449...
the standards of music engraving demand that all and only those staves so marked should have an orchestral bracket, and that the tops and bottoms of each such bracket in the system must have little circular finials.
Quote
What is your reference to support this
bidderxyzzy is correct in this, but I cannot quote a reference right now (I'm not at home), but there is probably something in the Lusk/Gerou notation book. There are other threads which discuss this issue, along with a few simple solutions posted by me and others (don't have time to search for those right now.). I don't agree, though, with the use of the term "bug," unless you also want to include "cleff" as a bug.
Pause wil stop repeats that have already played from repeating again, and again...
I set up my tempo track to work around this problem. If the regular parts have a 1.2.3.4. ending and a 5. ending, I make the "conductor" have a 1. ending, a 2. ending, a 3. ending, a 4. ending, and a 5. ending. I also have a way to get around D. S.s and such. After I get back up and running (after TWO hard drives crashes this summer!), I'll try to find a score in which I've used this technique (don't hold your breath, though - recovery is a sloooow process...), or you could try to figure it out on your own if you can't wait for me.
OT Most Americans I know call them "standard (transmissions)." I say "manual," while a few others I know say "stick shift." My car doesn't come with the option of automatic or manual, just automatic. So the standard transmission for my car is automatic.
One of my pet peeves is programs that think they know better than I do how I want my computer to be set up, and change things around without asking me first.
Me, too! Vista seems to do this a lot, and I've had cameras and other electronics do that also. "The Masses" aren't too smart, so electronics companies seem to want to make things easier for them by making everything automatic, which really gets in my way sometimes...
...I'm growing tired of Windows, and am very attracted to the style of OS-X. What's been holding me back for several years has been the potential loss of a fine piece of musical notation software if I move to a Mac...
Same here. We recently purchased a new Windows system and have had nothing but problems with it since. I had mentioned having wanted to get a Mac instead, and my wife said, "Why didn't we?" I wish we had, but then we'd have no NWC (and I think there's one other program - can't think of it right now...). I suppose we could install a Windows emulator on a Mac, but won't that make it crash all the time? ;-)
That explains it. Now that my system has crashed, I will need to reload NWC, so I'll probably get the CD this time, which will then allow me to get v2... [typos fixed...]
...I have never seen a tied pair of notes in printed music where the first note is staccato. Why would anyone write it? It just doesn't make sense.
Not making sense doesn't stop people from doing things. I have seen this notation in hand-written big band charts, the kind that looks as if it were written 15 minutes before performance. The first time we read through something like that, there is a train wreck, and we have to stop to determine what is meant by that notation. Another thing that bugs us, notationally speaking, is staccato dots on notes with augmentation dots. Using rests would be better (eighth note, sixteenth rest, sixteenth note instead of dotted-eighth note with staccato dot, sixteenth note - that just doesn't make sense...).
As for the first question, go to File Page Setup... Options tab Measure start (at the very bottom of the dialog) set it to 0 As for the second question, there was a thread about this, but I can't search for it right now. Hafta get my kid to a gig...
[I can't check out the attachment right now due to my recent HD crash, so I'm winging it...]
Quote
I tried to add a 64th rest in the endings, but it still didn't repeat.
Try adding 64th-notes in the endings, with a ppp.
The way I've accomplished it in the past, though, is to use hidden staves with the proper dynamics (or MPCs). I'd attach a sample but I don't even have NWC re-installed yet...
...and now ALL of my NWC files are lost... Now my new internal disk has failed (4 months old...) before I could finish taking care of other stuff. Fortunatley, my son's system still had my most important stuff, but none of the new stuff (since MayDay - an omen?), so it's all on a flash right now (wonder when THAT'S gonna fail...) I guess the real lesson here is Backup the Backups of your Backups!
[still looking for that "magic bullet" to put the external all back the way it was, if anyone knows any programs...] [/quote]
I haven't tried this, but if you do, and it works, let us know, please.
I have tried this, and it works. I had to do the Rutter Gloria that way (it comes with a condensed score and my wife wanted a full. I had to break it into 9 files to make it work.)
Go to Tools Options... File tab You should see Create Backup Files If this box is checked/ticked, then you have not lost as much as you think you have. You also should see Frequency (in minutes): 15 so the most you could have lost would be 15 minutes worth of work. You simply need to open the .bak file and most of what you've done will be there. Now, if the box is unchecked...
p.s. If you don't use the mouse and press Y (for "Yes"), you won't need to worry about the unexpected sneeze, or the twitches that we older folks get...
