NoteWorthy Composer Forum

Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Carl Mill on 2006-05-13 07:34 pm

Title: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Carl Mill on 2006-05-13 07:34 pm
I am notating a piece with many timing changes throughout and have run into a problem that may be a glitch in coding.  When notating the same staff with stem up and stem down notes of different timing values the length of the bar extends beyond the correct timing of the bar.  The bar has notes of the same values, just in reverse of each other.  See below.

INSERT BARS ON SEPARATE STAFFS TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

STAFF 1
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1|Opts:Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:5|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Crescendo
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

STAFF 2
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

STAFF 3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:-2^|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo,Tie=Downward
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Now when I use 2 tied quarter notes the bar length is correct.

STAFF 4
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-2^|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo,Tie=Downward
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-2^
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Any ideas other than layering?

Thanks
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Robin L. Øye on 2006-05-13 11:58 pm
Carl,

Hard to say... interesting problem.  Thought I had it momentarily, but I was wrong...

Robin
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2006-05-14 01:48 am
I have to agree it's an interesting problem.  Another interesting problem is trying to beam the upper and lower note pairings in a drum part like this:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Chord|Dur:8th,Dotted|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:8th,Dotted|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First|Dur2:8th,Dotted|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:16th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End|Dur2:16th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

No matter how good the programming, it will never address all of the permutations we find in written music.   I venture to speculate that Eric gave us layering precisely to provide reasonably easy and suitable workarounds to what could be unforeseen eventualities.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Lawrie Pardy on 2006-05-14 02:50 am
G'day Carl,
was about to reply a few hours ago but had to leave to go to church, just back now...

I don't believe the particular construct you're trying is possible in NWC without layering...
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: NoteWorthy Online on 2006-05-14 03:14 am
Without layering, your third staff, 2nd bar would need to be written like this:

Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-2^|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo,Tie=Downward
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-2
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Carl Mill on 2006-05-14 05:01 am
Thanks guys.  I was hoping the problem was solvable.  I already fixed it with two tied quarter notes.  Much easier than layering.  Maybe this can be fixed down the road.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: fitzclan on 2006-05-14 06:15 pm
Carl,
It seems to me that you have an extra quarter beat in the third staff which makes it 4/4 instead of 3/4. Changing the half note to a quarter gives you the correct timing for the measure.  i.e. -  What you have is 4 quarter beats in a 3 quarter beat measure - or maybe I'm missing something? I'm questioning myself because it seems that none of the others who replied are seeing that.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: fitzclan on 2006-05-14 06:23 pm
Hey David,
Now that is peculiar!
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2006-05-14 06:58 pm
Quote
Hey David, Now that is peculiar!
I have to ask, Fitzclan - do you mean the dotted 8th/16th for the bass drum is peculiar (I suspect it is), or do you mean the beam problem itself?  (grin)
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: fitzclan on 2006-05-15 12:14 am
Well David,
While my son is a drummer, I haven't spent much time looking at the actual notation of drum music so I don't know if that is unusual or not. I suspect I shall have to ask him.  I was talking about the beaming (or non-beaming), problem.  That, I think would be annoying to me if I was to notate for drums.
The other problem (the one with timing of notes), does not pose a problem that I can see.  When you tie notes together to lengthen the sustained duration between measures, you can chop up the time in whatever fashion will work, but you can't put 4 quarter beats in a 3/4 measure and expect it to line up vertically with a 3/4 measure that contains 3 quarter beats!
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2006-05-15 12:17 am
we concur
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: felisek on 2006-05-17 11:05 pm
The solution to the problem is to use quarter rest in chord with the half note, so that NWC knows that the quarter at the end of the bar follows another quarter (rest) parallel to the half, not he half itself. You can make it invisible if you prefer.

Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Carl Mill on 2006-05-18 02:26 am
Almost, but not quite.  By making the rest invisible, the underlaying note is also invisible.

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: fitzclan on 2006-05-19 01:45 am
Carl,
I am wondering why you would want to hide the quarter rest.  Felisek's solution is correct. The half note still stretches the half plus the eighth beat it is tied to. The rest just allows the next quarter note (the B#), to attack where you want it to (half way through the half beat), instead of after the duration of the half note. This is quite acceptable notation. I have run into this kind of thing many times when copying from sheet music. The way it is written doesn't always fly when you start counting the actual beats. 
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Lawrie Pardy on 2006-05-19 05:09 am
G'day Duncan,
I take your point but when trying to reproduce a score it can be nice to be as close as possible to the composers notation.  So...

How about moving the rest up higher than the staff, and then using some "digital white-out" to cover it.  Highlight 7 is White, font User5 is WingDings 24pt (my staff size is 16pt)

Code: [Select · Download]

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem,VertOffset=10|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^
|Text|Text:"n"|Font:User1|Pos:10|Justify:Right|Color:7
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End


Lawrie
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: fitzclan on 2006-05-21 12:02 am
Now that's using your noodle! Pretty ingenious, I never would have thought of that solution.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Lawrie Pardy on 2006-05-21 02:12 am
G'day Duncan,

Now that's using your noodle! Pretty ingenious, I never would have thought of that solution.

If I recall correctly, it was RickG who introduced me to the idea of "digital white-out"...  I use it on the odd occasion... :)
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2006-05-21 03:04 am
If I recall correctly, it was RickG who introduced me to the idea of "digital white-out"... 

Guilty. But I use it only as a last resort. Even though it is "white", my printer still counts it as a color and goes into "half-speed" mode. Also, since it must be used after what you want to obliterate, it is tricky to fix the position if you can't attach it to something. In the above example, I would use a layer.

Best uses for digital white-out I've found are:
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Carl Mill on 2006-05-21 03:44 am
Hi Lawrie, highlight 7 on my version of NWC2 is orange.  There is no white option.  I tried moving the rest out of the sight but it will only move +/-15, so that's no help.  I think the solution in the coding, i.e., the timing of the stem up notes should be independent of the stem down notes.  I'm not a programmer so I don't know if this is possible.  I guess I'll stick with the tied stem down quarter notes for this piece.

Thanks,

Carl
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Lawrie Pardy on 2006-05-21 03:51 am
G'day Carl,
in |Tools|Options|Color tab you can change the colours NWC uses.  This is where I have changed Highlight 7 to white in my system.  This is a system wide setting, not NWC file specific.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Carl Mill on 2006-05-21 04:13 am
Thanks Lawrie, didn't know that.

Thanks again.

Carl
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-07-25 08:38 am
Now you don't need "digital whiteout" to hide the rest. See:
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5868.0 (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5868.0)
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-09-30 02:47 am
   The extended discussion here about hidden rests and digital whiteout ignores the simple fact that staff 3 and staff 4 (staves 1 and 2 are irrelevant) are musically synonymous and should be interpreted and played identically.  Carl is not trying to stuff four beats into a three beat measure.  NoteWorthy is refusing to recognize that the stem up quarter note in the ¾ measure should begin in the middle of the stem down half note.  Breaking up the half note into two tied quarter notes gives the rendering engine a chance to recognize the presence of the final stem up quarter note before it's too late to do anything about it, but all events need to be recognized when they occur, not after some previous event is finished. 

Diagnosis: Bug.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-09-30 06:00 am
It seems as though we've had this discussion about bugs before, elsewhere in this forum, bidderxyzzy;-); but in this case, I agree with you. NWC doesn't render two voices on the same staff correctly. The problem David pointed to (the inability to beam the lower voice of a two-voice setting) is related. It doesn't have to be drum parts: beaming only works on the upper voice of any two-voice setting. I've run up against this situation many times.

The real problem here is that NWC doesn't actually do two voices on the same staff. What it appears to do (I haven't seen the code, so I can't say for sure) is to look at a chord with two different note durations in it, choose the shorter duration, and render the rest of the measure as if the shorter note's duration was the duration of the whole chord. You can watch this happen. Take any multi-part score in 4/4 and place a whole note in one of the parts. The measures in that part will line up with the rest of the parts. Now create a second line of quarter notes on the same staff as the whole note. As you place the first quarter note (the one you do by <control><enter> against the whole note), the measure will immediately shrink to the length of a quarter note, and will slowly expand as you enter the remaining three notes until the bars line up again. If you backspace those quarter notes out of existence, the measure will shrink again, and then jump back up to its proper length as you erase the quarter note that is directly against the whole note. It is a telling fact that, to add or erase notes in the voice with shorter durations, you use a simple enter or backspace rather than <control><enter> or <control><backspace>. As far as the program is concerned, you are adding and subtracting beats to or from the measure as a whole, not to or from a single voice.

Not sure if that last paragraph makes a lot of sense if you haven't figured it out already. The bottom line, here, is that two-voice writing on a single staff in NWC is done as a sort of kludge, and this leads to incorrect notation in a small but significant number of cases. I'm not sure there's a way around this without completely restructuring the format in which NWC writes files, which would open a whole can of worms. One thing we would be likely to lose - besides backward compatibility - would be the extremely small size of NWC files. IMO, resorting to layering in these cases is a small price to pay.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Cyril Alberga on 2007-09-30 01:40 pm
I'm not sure that there IS an algorithm which could decide where (in the time stream) the next note goes, and still make everyone happy.  So, we have a chord with a quarter and a half note.  We now enter a quarter note.  On what basis do you decide which of the two notes in the chord this should follow?  Sure, once the notes are in place you can READ them correctly, but I don't see any way to figure out what is meant during the entry process. 

I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I would really like to see a set of rules that would result in what the user wants.

We still don't have "Branch on intent" in the machine architecture!

Cyril N. Alberga
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-09-30 09:40 pm
Well, one way would be by the direction of the stems. Another might be by checking the location of the next barline and doing the math - although that would depend on the user placing the barline correctly, so it wouldn't be completely dependable. It would also take a fair amount of extra code. But checking the stem direction shouldn't be hard to implement. The backward compatibility issue is what seems to me to make this problem less important to work on than some others, because I do think it would require enough changes in the file structure, and in the rendering engine, to make compatibility a problem. I'd love to be proved wrong.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-09-30 10:58 pm
Carl's STAFF 3 can be done like this:
Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|DynamicVariance|Style:Rinforzando|Pos:-15|Visibility:Never
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo,ArticulationsOnStem,VertOffset=2000|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
I don't think it would be an improvement to have the # of beats in a measure change when stem directions change.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Cyril Alberga on 2007-09-30 11:17 pm
It seems to me that worrying about stem directions (particularly of whole-notes/semi-breves) is something I could do without.  In these cases, I simply layer, let the stems point as they may, and then flip them all in one operation.  But, that aside, the original question involved notes following a chord with multiple length notes.  Now, all of those notes have a stem point in the same direction, so how do you match the following notes to the correct one of them.  You can't count on vertical position, as voices may cross (which is likely to throw the stem direction clue into a cocked hat).

In addition, there are a lot of more-than-two voice cases, particularly in Bach and friends.  Some of the English suites have three and four voices in a single staff.  There is no way to write these without layering.  Why lumber the program with a kludge (that probably won't be correct a lot of the time) when it is only solving part of the set of problems?  After all, this is exactly what layering was built for.

Cyril N. Alberga
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Cyril Alberga on 2007-09-30 11:21 pm
Sorry, I forgot the example.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-01 02:37 am
   On further investigation, this problem occurs in version 1.75 also.  As has here been mentioned, layering was invented specifically because the restrictions on what note lengths (and rests for that matter) can be combined into a chord makes putting more than one independent voice on a staff always difficult and mostly impossible.  The first fix I would recommend would be to have a small pamphlet written on the subject "How to use NoteWorthy musically.", as opposed to just what the commands and keystrokes will do in their own little corners.  Layering is not "a small price to pay", it is the mechanism provided for this function.  Second, while there may be no simple and obvious algorithm for saying when a note in a multi-voice staff should begin, there seems to be no ambiguity to serious and educated keyboard players how music should be read.  If the standard interpretation of a measure would depend on stem direction, then this is what NoteWorthy must do.  Here, the solution must involve adding serious musicians to the programmer(s?) at NoteWorthy software. 

   Personally, I have never encountered this problem because I am mostly dividing two voice vocal staves into separate staves for each voice, so that each voice can be separately muted and unmuted.  I have occasionally needed to put a third voice on a staff (I have never seen four, though SharpEye and Lime do claim to handle this), specifically the pedal in an organ part.  Attached is one of my favorites, which is my own rendering into NoteWothy of a public domain (© 1924, by J. Fischer & Bro. and not renewed) arrangement of Adeste Fideles, with added descant for soprano by my conductor.  (Well, it gets away with just two staves for left hand and pedal together, but you get the idea, I'm sure.)

   Finally, a question for Rick G.  How would you create your "fix" using only the standard keystroke/mouse facilities of NoteWorthy, rather than editing the nwtext file?  Select the note and it comes up as having no duration value.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-01 03:37 am
Finally, a question for Rick G.  How would you create your "fix" using only the standard keystroke/mouse facilities of NoteWorthy, rather than editing the nwtext file?  Select the note and it comes up as having no duration value.
Create a RestChord with a 4th rest and a Stem down Half note "G". Select it. Like all RestChords and Chords with split duration, all the duration buttons are grayed. Then invoke this User Tool (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5868.msg38354#msg38354). Put: "2000" in the spinbox and accept it.

NoteWorthy has a very simple method of determining where the next note is: It follows the shortest duration component of the previous Note/Chord/RestChord. I do not want NoteWorthy making this determination based on stem directions or voice analysis any more than I want a word processor to insert or remove commas based on whether my clauses are dependent or independent. Nor do I want it telling me where I must or should not have bar lines.

Diagnosis: the cure is worse than the disease
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-01 03:48 am
Actually, NWC won't let you put two notes of different durations in the same chord on the same staff with the stems pointing the same direction - and if you try to add a note with a third duration to that chord, the program will refuse to enter it. So if you are working without layers, and have different durations in the same chord, you already have stems pointing in opposite directions. But I agree with bidderxyzzy again here: layers are the method NWC provides for putting more than one voice on the same staff. When I said they were a small price to pay, I was referring to the work involved, which is greater than it would be if you could work on a single staff. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood.

I love layers. They give you much greater flexibility than you get while working on a single unlayered staff. Voices can cross each other, rests can go where you want them to, multiple durations can appear in the same chord - you can even put several different-sounding instruments on the same staff, in the same chord, and hear all of them correctly during playback. What was asked at the beginning of this thread, though, was a question about limitations in the method NWC has provided for writing two voices on a single staff without layering. Is there a way to get around those? The simple answer is "no". The more complicated answer is "yes, but not without making some fairly deep changes in the program." The way two-voice staves are handled would have to be reconceived. The note-stem suggestion I made was just an additional kludge that would fix part of the problem -which, as many others have pointed out here, is really not a problem, just a different way of viewing how the program should operate.

Quote
I do not want NoteWorthy making this determination based on stem directions or voice analysis any more than I want a word processor to insert or remove commas based on whether my clauses are dependent or independent. Nor do I want it telling me where I must or should not have bar lines.

Neither do I, Rick - neither do I. I was just explaining how it could be done, not how it should be done.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-01 08:59 am
Thanks guys.  I was hoping the problem was solvable.  I already fixed it with two tied quarter notes.  Much easier than layering.  Maybe this can be fixed down the road.
While layering is the answer to many questions and problems, I try to use it as little as possible.
That is: standard S-A-T-B very often goes onto layered staves, but for divisi I use chords. Since for me the printed result is not the main issue, I sometimes tie quarter notes if a chord will not be entered the way I would want it.

But I do not think a "fix" for this will be coming our way. I can live with(out) it.
cheers,
Rob.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Cyril Alberga on 2007-10-01 01:50 pm
Quote
there seems to be no ambiguity to serious and educated keyboard players how music should be read.

Using this as an argument that there is no ambiguity in how it is written makes no sense. 

I truly think that it is equivalent to a trap-door cypher, where having a program to read the encoded message gives you no information as to how to create it, and vise-versa.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-01 02:52 pm
standard S-A-T-B very often goes onto layered staves, but for divisi I use chords.
Agreed. I have situations similar to this in piano music.

The ability to hide the rest (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5868.msg38354#msg38354) allows for better solutions in a number of areas. The ability to beam notes in a RestChord would extend this. Beaming split chords would require a host of changes to the file layout and the UI, but RestChord beaming should be an easier and IMO, a worthwhile change.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-01 03:39 pm
Actually, there is a great deal of ambiguity among keyboard players (and all other musicians) about how music should be read, and the further back in time you go, the greater the ambiguity. I recommend Thurston Dart's wonderful little book, The Interpretation of Music. It's fifty years old, now, but still the best work I know on the subject.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-02 05:03 am
Rick G.

   The user tool is editing the nwctext, just not by hand.  I was asking for a "pure NoteWorthy" solution that would apply to 1.75, which is, after all, what I have to get my scores into for distribution to the singers in my club. 

   NoteWorthy has no choice; it must understand the music or it can't play it or output MIDI.  I agree with William Ashworth that as you go to historical "deep time" there is indeed some variation in how music was read, but a tool like NoteWorthy is hard enough pressed to come up with one consistent reading, and this one reading must be determined by a panel (please, not a "committee") of truly and deeply educated musicians, not a programmer who also dabbles in music or a bunch of gadflies, and on this topic I would include myself in their number.  When I said there was no ambiguity, I really should have said that this was based on only five keyboard players that I know well, and applied to "standard" music of the 18th through mid 20th century. 

   As far as not wanting a word processor to criticize spelling and grammar, Microsoft Word does exactly this, and not all of what it does can be turned off.  Yet millions of people, like me, put up with it.  If you want a music processor that "doesn't argue with you", try
   
Quote
Music Notation Software written by musicians for musicians.
Music Publisher is a professional quality music notation system for all 32-bit Windows platforms. Focussed entirely on the printed page it is above all a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get visual system. The philosophy of Music Publisher is that it is simply a replacement for pencil and paper. If you want a particular effect on your score which "breaks" the rules of music then Music Publisher will not argue! Above all it produces the notation you want to see and does not impose its own rules.
Of course, it can't play the music.

   I too use chords for simple divisi which all have the same rhythm.  When they don't all have the same rhythm, this usually turns out to really be TTTBB or TTTBBB or even TTTTBBBB, which really want a staff per voice, however many fewer end up on the printed page.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-02 05:04 am
Rick G.

   The user tool is editing the nwctext, just not by hand.  I was asking for a "pure NoteWorthy" solution that would apply to 1.75, which is, after all, what I have to get my scores into for distribution to the singers in my club. 
buzz off
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Lawrie Pardy on 2007-10-02 06:18 am
G'day bidderxyzzy,
The user tool is editing the nwctext, just not by hand.  I was asking for a "pure NoteWorthy" solution that would apply to 1.75, which is, after all, what I have to get my scores into for distribution to the singers in my club. 

Don't hold your breath.  AFAIK development work on 1.75 has ceased.  Any new features will appear only in NWC2...  (there have been a couple of minor exceptions to this but they have been true bug related)

Quote
<snip>
Quote
Music Notation Software written by musicians for musicians.
Music Publisher is a professional quality music notation system for all 32-bit Windows platforms. Focussed entirely on the printed page it is above all a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get visual system. The philosophy of Music Publisher is that it is simply a replacement for pencil and paper. If you want a particular effect on your score which "breaks" the rules of music then Music Publisher will not argue! Above all it produces the notation you want to see and does not impose its own rules.
Of course, it can't play the music.

So use it instead...  Of course you won't 'cos NOBODY has a UI as good as NWC, and I don't blame you for that preference in the least - I have the same preference. 

BTW, you must be looking at an old version or something - when I looked it up on the net the specs say "MIDI output" so I assume that it actually can play back - I may have a closer look at it, I don't recall having done so before.  Do you know how much it is?  Don't worry, I looked it up - $199.00 USD - 5 times the price of NWC...

You commented earlier about the production of a pamphlet relating to the uses of layering - so produce one!  Many of the rest of us have done similar things in one way or another... 

<sigh>

Do you realise how very frustrating it is when we respond to a difficulty you've been having with workable solutions only to be either ignored, told that the solution is inadequate and/or berated for not also insisting that NWC immediately "fix" something that doesn't concur with your personal preferences!

<'nother sigh>

I mentioned in another post about expecting a Rolls Royce for a Trabant price...  I also mentioned about different written music having different regional dialects...  I'm still waiting for a response RE the orchestral bracket finial you wanted on the bottom of the lower grand staff in an example you gave (this is the second time I've specifically asked for a response)...  Seems you ignore lotsa comments you have no putdown for...

Thus I understand Rick's "buzz off" comment - personally I would prefer you to get off your "high horse" and actually join this community - you generally have quite reasonable observations and suggestions - it's just your offensive delivery that's become wearing.  You aren't always right - no different to the rest of us, so WHY do you have to insist you are right - which you do most strongly when you're most demostrably wrong!  Other peoples opinions are at least as worthy as your own.

/rant

<edit> I have just reread this post and it appears I have allowed some of my frustration to show.  I apologise for getting personal - I have no desire to start or take part in anything that even resembles a "flame war".  Please accept my humblest apologies if I have offended you.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2007-10-02 07:22 am
Quote
Music Publisher is a professional quality music notation system

I don't want to rant but I noticed an oddity or two so I have to be a gadfly or gadabout or whatever before hitting the sack.

MP6 looks very nice, the screen shots are pretty good.  I like its ability to draw phrase markings over slurs and ties.   Indeed the phrase mark in the 13th or 14th screen shot is very similar to something that was tested out in the private betatest, and is not dissimilar to what I mentioned a day or two ago as something I had put in the wish list at least once.

I'm curious why a pair of slurred stem-up notes has an arching curve slightly above the noteheads, but lower than the top of the stems?  Is that the default behaviour?  If so, I think it's incorrect - absent a two part staff, the slur should go downwards.

Is it correct have a word in a lyric begin before its note?  (See Be Known To Us, the words here, break-ing, but and then.) 

The first demo video was nicely done (even if it did put 4 beats in a 3 beat bar).  It looks as if each note requires a couple of keystrokes, instead of one.  Perhaps there's a shortcut, but if not, NWC is less work.  I wonder how European users, who might not use English note names, would know which letter to press to get their notes?  I'm thinking of Si b, etc.  Is there a guide saying which key to press? 

How will it generate finials, I wonder?

Nice playback capability.  Oops, doesn't appear to have note chasing, in the demo.  Oh well, no big deal.

Transposing seems straightforward.  Does it give the user a choice between sharp and flat keys (F#/Gb , Db/C#)?

Does it have the capability to detect timing errors such as an extra beat in a bar, or a missing beat?

Does it provide reasonable flexibility in using extended bar lines to connect instrument groups in an orchestra or band score, without using the upper/lower grand staff bracket? 

Nice program, yes.  Professional quality?  Perhaps.  Does it do anything that I can't do in NWC?  Maybe one or two things.  Is it easier to use?  Perhaps.  Everything has a learning curve, so it's hard to say.  Is it as flexible?  Well, it won't import midi, but it will scan and it will import bmp images of print music.

Bidderxyzzy, thank you for bringing the program to our attention.  I guess if we see the need to switch to it, some of us will.  We all make choices.  I doubt if I'll make that one, but others might. 


Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-02 09:23 am
@bidderxyzzy,
Will you ever post anything that does not offend any of us?
There are no prizes to be won for being unpleasant. But (it's not a threat, it's more like one of your beloved truths) I can be a whole more unpleasant than you. Trust me.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Cyril Alberga on 2007-10-02 01:24 pm
Is there a way to kill-file a poster in this forum?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-02 03:38 pm
Yes there is. This new forum (which has cost a lot of precious time to set up and to hone to near-perfection) has been put in place to replace the old one, by necessity.
There was one user who refused to behave. Repeatedly so.
This forum has the ability to block users. But whatever has been said thus far, I do not think that it is time to resort to such measures yet. There is hope. And I did not inherit (from) many genes carrying optimism.
cheers,
Rob.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-02 03:43 pm
bidderxyzzy, please read Lawrie's recent post - including the apology at the end - very carefully. Until you get to the apology the language is most un-Lawrie-like. If you have gotten under his extremely tolerant skin, imagine what you have done to some of the rest of us with lower flash points. Actually, you don't have to imagine; just read some of the other posts that followed your most recent rant.

Do you understand yet? Your insights are welcome. Your tone is not. This forum is designed to point to possible improvements in the program, not to insult the intelligence of the programmer. We are Eric's helpers, not his superiors. And, no, you aren't his superior either.

It is very revealing to me that you "put up" with MS Word's spelling and grammar checkers. Most of us don't put up with them, we turn them off. Most of us also find workarounds for the problems in NWC, and are thankful for the ability to do that, instead of leaving the problems hanging out there in our scores and just putting up with them. The program definitely could be better; that's what we're here for. Dumping garbage on it doesn't help.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-03 08:54 pm
Greetings, my friends. 

   Why the vitriol?  Show me where I have been abusive, demeaning, obscene, or even just "snide".  I have previously written at great length just why I cannot use a result based on obscure trickery any more than a mother could use a toy box full of lead painted objects with tiny but powerful magnets loosely glued to them just because its exterior is copasetic.  Besides, both I and the originator of this thread displayed our own fully satisfactory solutions (he using tied quarter notes and I using staff overlay) long before the trickery was posted.  On the other hand, much of the discussion about how written music should be interpreted was very useful, but remember that my opinion is just as valid as yours.  In the end, though, Eric, or the organization he fronts for, must make the final decision.

   It also seems that my fear of being thought patronizing lead me to make some of my comments too terse.  "Music Publisher" is a different beast than Music Publisher 5/6, far more different than NW1 and NW2.  My quote was from the Braeburn Software web site and a direct response to what I take to be unfair criticism of NoteWorthy.  It was meant as a sincere suggestion.  As far as Microsoft Word goes, I do turn off "check spelling and grammar while typing", but things like automatic capitalization after a period, translation of the "th" after a digit to superscripts, conversion of things that look like url's and email addresses to hyperlinks, automatic substitution of fonts and many other things cannot be turned off.  If I were using a word processor only to produce printouts I would use the Windows 98 vintage Corel WordPerfect 7, which gives the user total information and control, but since I must usually distribute my writings as e-mail attachments, I must put up with the effort of undoing much of the automatic formatting done by Microsoft Word.

   Finally, while an apology is better than not getting one, it would be best to act so that none is needed.


   
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-03 09:26 pm
I've got Office 2007 here, so the interface is somewhat different. But AFAIK, the translation of the "th" after a digit to superscripts, conversion of things that look like url's and email addresses to hyperlinks, automatic substitution of fonts and many other things CAN be turned off. Look again. It's under Autocorrect somewhere.

But that's not the point. This time, I will not bother to look into your explanation. What is copasetic? I don't care too much. The point is that you are not following the intrinsic (and not intricate) Rules of the Friendlies Forum on the Web. Remember that name, act accordingly, and you cannot go wrong.
An apology is not needed. At the point where you do not yet understand what is going on, it will not be sincere.
Beyond that point, no one will ask for it anymore.
cheers,
Rob.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-03 09:38 pm
I have previously written at great length just why I cannot use a result based on obscure trickery any more than a mother could use a toy box full of lead painted objects with tiny but powerful magnets loosely glued to them just because its exterior is copasetic.
Yes, you have. And it boils down to: My consumers are not registered users and cannot use NWC2 files.
Why ask for NWC 1.75 solutions in the [NWC2] General Discussion forum?

2009Aug01 Edit: When the above was written, this topic was posted to a board named: [NWC2] General Discussion
It has since been merged into General Discussion.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Lawrie Pardy on 2007-10-03 11:04 pm
Why the vitriol?

<sigh> you didn't understand one word did you...
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-04 02:54 am
   Sigh, neither do you.  It has nothing to do with what rev my customers are using, but rather that they are real people using what I produce for a real purpose.  I could find a dozen places in this forum where some of you glory in being snide, or threaten fire and brimstone if…  but what's the point?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-04 12:09 pm
Hey, the hellfire and brimstone was mine.
Seriously, when was the last time you had a good laugh?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-04 02:50 pm
All those things you mentioned in MS Word - automatic capitalization, automatic superscripts, automatic translation to hyperlinks, etc. - can be turned off. They're all turned off on my machine. You just have to be willing to dig a little deeper into the program (you'll find most of them, as Rob suggests, under "autocorrect options").

Mainly, that's what we're asking you to do with NWC - dig a little deeper. Most of the things you are complaining that the program can't do can actually be done if you're willing to do that digging. Your earlier confusion (in another thread) among invisible objects, layered staves, and hidden staves comes to mind. Are you using hidden staves for playback yet? Or, as in so many of the suggestions we've made, are you simply rejecting them out of hand?

As to your tone, I think the word "supercilious" fits it best. Look it up.

Early in one of the other threads on this forum, you stated that you were well aware of your tone and chose it on purpose. Do you understand yet that it doesn't work? Can you choose something else?

Look: we're trying to be friends, here. Some of us have gone out of our way to praise your insights when they are on target. A little friendliness back, a little willingness to admit that you might occasionally be wrong, and you'd be surprised how soon the walls melt away.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: tony smedley on 2007-10-04 03:37 pm
bidderxyzzy,

At 84 and nearlyb85 years of age, I have seen a lot of life and to the best of my ability try to offend no one but put forward my views without  claiming that I am always correct ( even if I know that I am)  I have to say with others that you are being a little too aggressive in these forums and a little less agrression would be welcome. It need not in any way stop you from expressing an opinion, or even a fact.

Tony
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-04 03:51 pm
In any soap, this would be the time for tears.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-04 05:33 pm
Before this makes the Top 10 Topics (by Replies) (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?action=stats), It would be nice to have the title changed to: Timing or Mathematical Problem

I doubt that Carl Mill (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?action=profile;u=92) had any idea that his little problem would generate this many replies. Enshrining this topic with a spelling error would seem unfair to him.


Too late. Besides, I've been informed that there are technical difficulties with my request.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-08 04:42 am
Quote
Your earlier confusion (in another thread) among invisible objects, layered staves, and hidden staves comes to mind. Are you using hidden staves for playback yet? Or, as in so many of the suggestions we've made, are you simply rejecting them out of hand?

   Whoa.  Here I must cry foul.  There is not and never was any confusion in my mind about various kinds of hidden stuff.  I merely pointed out that when you give a customer a NoteWorthy file (not a printout or a generated midi file or a wma or mp3 file) and he has a fully functional NoteWorthy program (not the Reader), then unless there is an undocumented password lock on individual bits of notation, nothing whatever can be hidden from him if he chooses to use the contents dialogue box under page setup.  Hidden notation, though it doesn't print, appears on screen in a sort of goldish highlight.  And I do routinely exclude the accompaniment from display on most of my distributed files.  I am not "dismissing" anything, out of hand or otherwise, but rather pointing out that having a diverse audience for what I produce makes any use of obscure trickery or attempt to "hide" a lack in NoteWorthy by having separate printing and playback staves completely futile.

   As to my language, I am not attacking any individual in this forum or for that matter NoteWorthy itself, but merely calling a spade a spade.  NoteWorthy Version 1 would have been a joke as a serious music-engraving program, but as far as I can see, no such claim was ever made.  I believe NW1 was intended to give composers and arrangers a quick way of hearing approximately what their music sounded like without hiring an orchestra or straining their keyboard skills.  NW2 seems to be trying to make it as a serious engraver, but with such an obvious in your face "property" as its handling of the orchestral staff attribute, it can hardly avoid remaining a joke.

   Thanks for pointing to the "options" button under "AutoFormat" under the "format" dropdown menu.  That still leaves font substitution, but more to the point I was trying to point out that sometimes there are reasons for using a program that have nothing to do with its quality.  In the case of Word, it is that it is a defacto standard.  In the case of NoteWorthy they are its superior rendering of files into sound linked to a note chase and the tiny size of its binary files.  Still, I would like to print scores which will not be dismissed as "some computer printout". 
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-08 05:49 am
OK - let's try this again on the hidden staves. I'm sorry we don't seem to be making ourselves clear. The technique we are talking about hides staves completely, on both the screen and the printout. No "sort of goldish highlight." Nothing.

Please open a multi-stave file in Noteworthy. Now, under the file menu, choose "Page Setup." Click on the tab at the far left, labeled "contents." You will see two text boxes, one labeled "groups" and the other labeled "visible parts." The "visible parts" box will contain the same number of lines of text as there are staves in your score. Each of these lines will consist of the name of one of the staves, plus a checkbox at the left end of the line. By default, each of these is checked. If you uncheck any of them, the staff it corresponds with will disappear completely from the screen. Vanished. Kaput. Gone. But it will still play during playback. So to get the playback to sound right on a staff that needs a lot of tweaking with what would otherwise be hidden notes:


I hope this helps.

As to the look of NWC scores, I have never had a performer complain, even about NWC I. My stuff is usually played by professional musicians (music faculty at our local university, mostly), and they can be pretty picky. I do agree that the very early versions of NWC (mid-1990s) produced pretty raw-looking scores. I stuck through the program through those days because of its ease of use and its potential, and I feel that potential is now being realized. I suspect most others in this forum would say the same thing. We're a pretty loyal bunch, as you might have noticed. When you call our baby a "joke," we tend to get upset. That is the long and the short of our disagreement with you - or, at least, it is of mine.

I hope this helps, too.

Good luck with the hidden staves. Let us know how they come out.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2007-10-08 07:24 am
William, you wrote
Quote
the very early versions of NWC (mid-1990s) produced pretty raw-looking scores.
  Do you think that may have been partly to do with the printers that were available in thoses days?  The good old dot matrix beasts?


Bidderxyzzy, c'mon!  4 days ago you asked:
Quote
Show me where I have been abusive, demeaning, obscene, or even just "snide".

Today, in just one reply, you managed abusive, demeaning and snide:
Quote
obscure trickery
Quote
NoteWorthy Version 1 would have been a joke as a serious music-engraving program
Quote
it can hardly avoid remaining a joke.

Relax, it will all be the same in 100 years.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-08 09:26 am
... and today you managed so much in one single paragraph:
"As to my language, I am not attacking any individual in this forum or for that matter NoteWorthy itself
<snip> it can hardly avoid remaining a joke."
All jokes aside, I still seriously doubt that you have had a good laugh in the past 10 years.

But hey, what a golden opportunity. I have been wanting to say this for days. Thanks!
Bizz off, Xidderbuzzy.

Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Warren Porter on 2007-10-08 11:50 am
Please open a multi-stave file in Noteworthy. Now, under the file menu, choose "Page Setup." Click on the tab at the far left, labeled "contents." You will see two text boxes, one labeled "groups" and the other labeled "visible parts." The "visible parts" box will contain the same number of lines of text as there are staves in your score. Each of these lines will consist of the name of one of the staves, plus a checkbox at the left end of the line. By default, each of these is checked. If you uncheck any of them, the staff it corresponds with will disappear completely from the screen. Vanished. Kaput. Gone. But it will still play during playback.
Good point.  This is already done in your "Samples" folder:  Look at Moonlight.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-08 04:01 pm
   How dense can one be?  After I describe just how I make staves hidden and how they will not remain hidden when a user gets hold of them and "unhides" them, you still think you are making a contribution by giving a condescending description of how to do what I just said I have been doing all along? 

   As for the appearance of NoteWorthy Version One scores, they were perfectly useful, at least if one put in hairpins and orchestral brackets by hand and ignored the always flat ties and slurs, among many other things, but they were definitely not high quality engravings.  If that satisfies you, so be it.  But don't put down anyone who wants something better, it only makes you look silly.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2007-10-08 05:39 pm
Message deleted, after sober second thought.  It ain't worth it.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-08 08:14 pm
Why am I thinking of Victor Meldrew now?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: fitzclan on 2007-10-08 09:28 pm

bidderxyzzy  - My wife reminds me with some frequency that it's not necessarily what you say as much as how you say it. She's right!  We understand that you and your people are doing real and important things, but realize that the endevors of others are just as important and real as yours. It's not necessary to offer anything to anyone for their kind and polite assistance, however a simple "thanks" is common courtesy here on this forum as well as anywhere else in the world, even if their efforts don't bring about the desired result. The idea, I believe is to have a place where we can come to get help when we need it from knowledgable people who use the same program as well as to reciprocate when we can. Different points of view are welcome as that is how we may best solve our problems. And I have to agree, if you have pissed off Lawrie, you have to be trying very hard so please, Lighten up! Regards...
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-08 10:09 pm
C'est le ton qui fait la Noteworthy.
Et en disant ça, j'ai décidé moi-même que Noteworthy est femelle?
Tant mieux, je l'aimerai toujours.
amitiés, Rob.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-09 01:29 am
OK - guilty as charged. I didn't see the bit in your post about being afraid your users would get into the contents box and turn on the hidden staves. Jumped right over it to the little golden highlights. (They're grey on my machine, but never mind.) I guess I skipped that bit because I can't figure out why you would care if your users saw the hidden staves. No one is ever likely to get there by accident - it takes three separate and distinct steps, and the chance of accidentally doing them all in order is pretty low. That leaves us with the people who get there by fiddling around with the program, and they are likely to be able to fiddle their way back out again. After all, if they are registered NWC users, they have a right to use the program as they please - they don't have to limit themselves to only doing what you want them to. So what's the problem?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-09 05:52 am
Good day, Gentlemen,

   Finally we are getting down to something of substance, both in terms of NoteWorthy and my "attitude".  I can assure you all that with the slightest hint about just what you object to, I will soon be able to avoid people's toes altogether and not just their corns.

   I am not "afraid" of anything my users will do, and in fact encourage them to become adept at using the tools I give them.  I have a question for all of the "hidden trickery" party, not just Mr. Ashworth, who was kind enough just now to give me a reasoned reply.  Why do you want your work hidden?  I hide the accompaniment only so that there will be more room on the screen for my singer's parts, and expect them to be aware of and change the accompaniment when needed, if only to correct the balance of volume for their particular sound hardware.  I have all along been objecting only to the idea that the ability to cobble together something that sounds the way you want it to but is so ugly it needs to be hidden behind a pretty but muted staff gives the developers an excuse (sometimes it sounds like "a good reason") to deny the user community the tools that would let the real nitty gritty be presentable.  As far as NoteWorthy becoming a truly serious fine engraving program, the LilyPond project, if it reaches its potential, which is still an open question, will surely eclipse not only NoteWorthy but Finale, Sibelius and every possible past and future bits of music software except, possibly, a clone of itself run by a different group of people. I will give my thought on this fuller expression in a thread of its own.

   Meanwhile, back to the original topic of this thread.  Chords in NoteWorthy are problematic, and there are several current threads concerning difficulties created by the way they are handled.  This thread concerns a situation where the length of a measure as calculated by NoteWorthy (and please, let's handle the question of whether NoteWorthy should calculate the length of a measure in its own thread) differs according to whether a note is represented by a single half note or two tied quarter notes.  Would anyone care to defend the position that this behavior is correct and should not be changed?  Would anyone care to defend the position that even though this behavior is incorrect it should not be corrected?  Would anyone care to defend the position that though the behavior should be corrected, the developer(s) are fully entitled to sit on it forever?  I await your answer(s).

Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Peter Edwards on 2007-10-09 11:08 am
Yes, I'm perfectly happy to defend it. NWC calculates the length of the chord (including single notes of course) by using its shortest or only component. This behaviour is consistent, predictable and straightforward. Any attempt to decipher an ambiguous situation (admittedly this one is not because the minim is tied) would lead to complication and uncertainty whereas NWC thrives on its simplicity and lack of restriction on what a user can insert onto the staff.

And in any case the two examples are not the same. The minim will produce an ambiguity: tied crotchets will remove it.

And the problem is easily resolved. Use layering, or change the tied minim to

Quote
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem,VertOffset=2000|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2o^|Color:0|Visibility:Default
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: John Ford on 2007-10-09 01:03 pm
Would anyone care to defend the position that though the behavior should be corrected, the developer(s) are fully entitled to sit on it forever, even though they have sold an imperfect product?

Hi, Bidderxyzzy,

I have been reading this thread for some time now and have been amazed at how your perceived expectations far exceed reality.  I probably shouldn't post this, but I felt I should.

In my mind, the above statement posted by you pretty much sums up your attitude that folks have been talking about.  It's very easy to say, "well, all the programmer has to do is yada yada..."  It's not always so easy to actually do that, and I don't know any programmer who is going to change priorities just because bidderxyzzy demanded it.

I would be extremely curious as to what other programs you run that are NOT imperfect.  Or better yet, what else in life that is NOT imperfect.  And if that is the standard you expect in this wonderful $39 program, then it's plain that you will NEVER be happy.

It's one thing to strive for excellence (notice I didn't say perfection, because you'll never get there); it's another thing to criticize just because it doesn't live up to your sense of perfection.

You need to get over it.  If we all waited for perfection we'd be waiting an awfully long time, and not getting anything done in the process.

Why don't you take heart in the fact that a lot of folks have found workarounds (and in NWC 2, user tools).  You can always still go to the wish list and express how the program can better serve your needs, so you might not need workarounds in the future.  It's even okay to discuss the issue on the forum (in a civil manner); it's not okay to just demand that it be fixed because you happen to be inconvenienced.

I'm amazed that you are asking for fixes to 1.75, when you know perfectly well that 2.0 is superseding it.  Hmmm, maybe I should ask Microsoft to update Word 97, because I liked it a lot more than Word 2000.  Maybe they could add some of the Word 2000 features I do like into Word 97.  Do you think they'll do that for me?

I find it interesting that you say, "try Music Publisher.  Of course, it can't play the music".  Hmmm, where's the perfection there?

I also noticed that at the start of this thread, William Ashworth was generally in agreement with you on several point, but then he posted:

Quote
Do you understand yet? Your insights are welcome. Your tone is not. This forum is designed to point to possible improvements in the program, not to insult the intelligence of the programmer. We are Eric's helpers, not his superiors. And, no, you aren't his superior either.

You seem to be demanding an awful lot from a $39 program.  You even mentioned that NWC should hire musicians to help make the product better.  Well, I think Eric and company understand music well enough to keep making NWC better.  I really wouldn't want NWC to bloat up so much that the end result is a several hundred dollar program (you got to pay the people working for you) that works as perfectly as say, Finale or Sibelius (he says with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

Bring up your issues; we'll talk about them.  Visit the wish list and submit the changes you would like to see (but remember, it's a wishlist, not a demand list).  Learn the workarounds to use in the interim.  And get on with your life; life's too short to be so critical over stuff that really doesn't matter that much.

Expressing frustration about what you don't like is okay.  As I read the forum, for example, Rick G. has lots of good ideas and calls out a lot of inconsistencies in the program.  That's because it's not perfect.  Did you get that; it's not perfect.  Rick knows it; Lawrie knows it; I know it; everyone knows it.  We don't expect it to be perfect.  But it can be better.  So the ideas and suggestions are presented and discussed.  That's how change comes about.  And Rick takes the time to write a user tool to overcome many of the obstacles; so does Lawrie and Andrew and others.  That's one of the beauties of NWC 2.0, you can change a lot of what you don't like.  And by the way, over time, many wishes do actually get granted.  Maybe not on your time schedule, but Eric and Co. does seem to take seriously the serious wishes posted to the wishlist.

It's not what you say, bidderxyzzy, it's how you say it.  Constructive criticism is always welcome; dissing the program because it's not what you think it should be is not.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-09 01:44 pm
I have this funny feeling... say no more?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-09 04:23 pm
Thanks, John, for a brilliant summation.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-09 04:47 pm
Gentlemen,

   Please, how is recognizing a genuine fault "dissing" NoteWorthy?  How does claiming that the potential existence of an ambiguity, admitted not to be present here, somehow make reacting differently to musically synonymous input just fine and dandy?  I find NoteWorthy the only program available that even vaguely meets the need for a user controllable vocal practice aid.  I would like to see it improved, and do not understand those who see a polite request to have an obvious bug fixed as a demand for perfection, which it most certainly is not.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: John Ford on 2007-10-09 05:16 pm
(http://www.sus4chord.com/Emoticons/brick.gif)
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-09 06:37 pm
Today, in just one reply, you managed abusive, demeaning and snide:
I took 'obscure trickery' as a compliment, but David, you are correct: it was probably intended to be snide.

This thread concerns a situation where the length of a measure as calculated by NoteWorthy (and please, let's handle the question of whether NoteWorthy should calculate the length of a measure in its own thread) differs according to whether a note is represented by a single half note or two tied quarter notes.
No, it does not. It concerns where the next note/chord/rest should be placed after a RestChord or Chord with differing durations (IOW, |Dur: <> |Dur2:). The solution for the original poster was to either use layering or to use a tie. He chose a tie.

Before layering (c. 1998), NoteWorthy tried to handle 2 voices on one staff without forcing the User to expressly mark each note/rest/chord as to its voice. This was all in the spirit of NWC being easy to get a song done without mastering the entire program. It was found to be inherently unworkable. One reason was this very problem. There were others. It was a painful realization that was reached only after much discussion.

RestChords and split stem Chords are legacy objects. There is nothing that can be done with them on one staff that cannot be done without them on 2 layered staves. This has been true for about 7 years. AFAIK, there has never been an official announcement, but NoteWorthy stopped all enhancement of them somewhere around v1.70. They are supported in about the same sense that Micro$oft supports Outlook Express 6 in XP. It runs, but don't look for new features.

Some examples: NWC2 adds 'Use stems for articulations' to every RestChord even if it has no articulation. This might make some sense if an articulation could be added later, but this is not possible except by editing the ClipText. Modifing the 'Vertical Offset' runs into the same wall. RestChords cannot be beamed and split stem Chords do not beam properly. Split stem chords lack independent adjustment of stem lengths making them generally worthless in a song with Lyrics.

These problems have existed for years. IMO, they don't get fixed because you can always put each voice in its own layer.

Quote from: Rick G. in a bad paraphrase of Obi Wan Kenobe
You don't need these bugs fixed. These aren't the solutions you are looking for. Time to move along ...
(to  slurs!)

This topic was dormant for 2 months until I posted <this> (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5569.msg40449#msg40449). I now regret doing it.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-09 11:08 pm
No regrets, Rick. You had no way of knowing what would happen, and the exchange may have been fruitful for some users who haven't dug as deep into the program as some of the rest of us.

Bidderxyzzy, there are three reasons I don't mind doing workarounds to get the sound right, and then hiding them:


I could probably come up with others, on reflection. As to the engraving, as I pointed out earlier, I have never had a performer complain, and that's really what counts, isn't it? Do your scores really have to go into the Music Engravers' Hall of Fame? Isn't it enough that they are easy to read, and that your intentions are clear?
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-10 02:53 am
   In case you haven't already noticed, I am a devotee of putting each voice on its own staff and layering.  This gives total control, and when neat printing is desired, suppressing redundant rests and putting in the extra note space sometimes needed when voices cross is tedious but straightforward.  I recognize the fossil dinosaur in split stem, split duration and rest chords, and was thankful for the invention of layering, which came along just when I really started to need it, particularly for putting in complex piano accompaniments.

   However you view the details of the cause of the origin of this thread, understanding why a behavior occurs does not make it not a bug.  Musically synonymous constructs must be treated consistently.  If your expectation that this will never be fixed is true, it won't affect my use of NoteWorthy, as I don't use the construct that is failing here, but again this doesn't make it not a bug.

   I can and do agree that workarounds are sometimes a necessary stopgap, but that doesn't mean that generating them is the right way to go.  My first priority, if not always my first action, is to get deficiencies properly defined and documented.  It's what I wanted my customers to do when I was making my living developing software, and I think it's perfectly appropriate here.

   NoteWorthy Version 2 will, with a little graphic editing to put in titles and orchestral brackets, produce printouts that don't immediately strike the eye as crude, and even Version 1.75 produces something perfectly usable as intermediate drafts when working on a piece.  But what is acceptable in private and for limited distribution just doesn't hack it when you want to publish.  If you don't know for yourself, just trust me on this one.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-10 05:09 am
Well, my friend, before you begin lecturing me on how the publishing industry operates, you might want to check my Website. Here's the link:

http://williamashworth.net/ (http://williamashworth.net/)

I have not published music, but I doubt that industry is substantially different from the book-publishing world, with which I am intimately familiar. If you have something they don't want to publish, they'll measure the margins of your MS and reject it if they're a millimeter to narrow. If you have something they do want to publish, they don't care if it's submitted handwritten in purple ink on lined yellow paper, which is how Ogden Nash used to submit his poetry in an era when other poets' work was being rejected for the wrong typescript format. The blunt fact is that they're going to reset it before publication anyway, so that it matches house style. This is true even if you submit it electronically, either on disc or via e-mail. Trust me on this.

I'm sorry, bidderxyzzy, but the world just doesn't operate on the level of perfection you seem to want it to. I was going to offer you good luck in getting it there, but I really don't want it there. I prefer a little tolerance for differences. It might do you a world of good if you would practice a little tolerance, too.

Cheers,

William Ashworth
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-10 06:30 am
Good, B***y. In toto et summo, you don't understand, and you never will.
I have a wish, now. For this subject to be locked. You are obviously too old to learn, and have been so for many, many years.
I have here a teacloth with musical "definitions". You will find it of no humoristic value, because you clearly have forgotten how to laugh, but I do.

One of the lines reads:
       Dim - Thick.
I will remember you, not always, but quite a few times, every time I come across a diminuendo.
cheers,
Rob.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Peter Edwards on 2007-10-10 10:24 am
Quote
It might do you a world of good if you would practice a little tolerance, too.

Quote
You will find it of no humoristic value, because you clearly have forgotten how to laugh

Motes and beams come to mind. I suggest turning of the cheek would be more effective. Please stop it gentlemen.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-10 02:46 pm
More effective? Fraid not. John's post was excellent. His next post was a headbanging smiley.
Nothing is effective. That's why I suggested this thread to be closed. And I do not care/mind if it gets deleted altogether. It's a blot on the landscape.

(As you know, I like to quote. "And a rousing toodle-oo to you, you young blot on the landscape," she replied cordially.)
cheers,
Rob.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-10 03:24 pm
I think I agree with Rob about locking this thread, although it should probably stick around as an object lesson.

I don't want to write bidderxyzzy off completely - check his contributions to the thread on the page numbering bug in 2.20 - but when he gets on his high horse (which is most of the time) and starts being snide, insulting and condescending, he pushes every button I've got, and this thread is full of it ;-)

John's headbanging smiley expresses my frustration perfectly. Lawrie has apparently left the building. It's probably time to pull the plug.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-10 09:18 pm
   Bill, you are awfully sensitive if you find half a sentence a lecture.  Besides, read what you wrote:

Quote
I have not published music, but I doubt that industry is substantially different from the book-publishing world…  [emphasis added]
   And contemplate the advice of Wittgenstein
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)


   You are right about one thing, I will never understand the motivation of someone who would deny others their desires merely because they want something he does not want. 
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-10 09:59 pm
John, I need to borrow this:

(http://www.sus4chord.com/Emoticons/brick.gif)

Thanks - I needed that.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: bidderxyzzy on 2007-10-11 02:26 am
How about a substantive comment, or is all you can do is be negative? 
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rick G. on 2007-10-11 03:03 am
I count [abbr=Carl Mill, Robin L. Øye, David Palmquist, Lawrie Pardy, NoteWorthy Online, fitzclan, felisek, Rick G., bidderxyzzy, William Ashworth, Cyril Alberga, Rob den Heijer, tony smedley, Warren Porter, Peter Edwards, John Ford]16 contributors[/abbr] to this thread and only one thinks that the topic is a bug.
IMO, the undecided are best represented by:
I'm not sure that there IS an algorithm which could decide where (in the time stream) the next note goes, and still make everyone happy. <snip>
I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I would really like to see a set of rules that would result in what the user wants.
Having had the last word, I too would like the topic locked :)
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-11 05:00 am
OK: Substantive Comment.

I have checked six different music publishers' submission guidelines. I quit at that point because all of them said exactly what I expected them to. As The Boosey & Hawkes guidelines quite eloquently put it:

Quote
Please make sure the copy is legible.

Beethoven could never have been published under that guideline, but that is beside the point. Finale scores, Sibelius scores, Noteworthy scores, handwritten scores - it's all the same, because the publisher will redo it in house style anyway.

One gets to know a business when one has spent thirty years in it. And I am now going to join Lawrie, wherever he went. He is a very wise man, and we all should follow his example more often.
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: David Palmquist on 2007-10-11 08:22 am
Quote
it's all the same, because the publisher will redo it in house style anyway.

William, I appreciate your experience in the real publishing world, but I think we have to recognize that more and more composers self-publish, because they have the software and get to make a profit instead of having that go to the publishers and distributers. That's arguably a good thing.

Unfortunately the quality of the printed outputs varies a bit. 

I guess we'll get used to it. 




Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: William Ashworth on 2007-10-11 02:18 pm
Hi David,

I wasn't going to get back into this thread, but I did want to respond to your thoughtful note re self-publication. I agree with all that you said, and in fact all of my music so far has been self-published. I just didn't think that was what we were talking about. And, honestly, when I look at much self-published music out there, I give thanks that Noteworthy is as good as it is. It's not as good as it can get, but I think that's why we're here.

Cheers,

Bill
Title: Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem
Post by: Rob den Heijer on 2007-10-12 06:49 am
That... and for the hell of it.

The message herein has been worded in different ways; here's another.

As I hung my harp in the willow tree
it turned its weeping face to me
and asked in tones, unpleasantly sharp:
Why not yourself instead of the harp?

Kind invitation but it lacked
as you'll agree the grace of tact,
and gentlemen don't hang at ease
among the leaves of tactless trees.

So I refused, which taught that tree
a lesson in civility
and you, my readers, how in fact
a question should be asked with tact.

cheers,
Rob.