It is a strange and severe limitation of the viewer that it is not possible to stop and resume playing at any point of one's own choosing. It leaves the chorister with the only choice of starting a particularly difficult passage right from the beginning of the track, and that is a torture, particularly if he/she is rehearsing a movement of, say, 200 bars and the passage in question is at bar 180. Could something be done, please!
Put your cursor at the measure from which you wish to play. Then when you press play, NWC will begin at the start of that measure.
At least it works that way with Version 1.
Doug
Nope, both the version 1.75 NWplayer and 2.x NWviewer always start at the beginning when you hit play. You should make a request on the wish list to change this behavior.
I'm sure that the behavior of the viewer is intentional. After all, our friends at NWC need to make a profit from all of their hard work. I think it's very good of them to make the player and viewer available for free. Perhaps it is time to purchase the product. At such a nominal cost for such a great program, I don't think you will regret it, especially if it is something that you use all of the time. Then you will be able to edit and print any parts you want or even write your own music. Quite a bargain!
NWC Browser plugin worked OK. Could start the cursor anywhere. Only trouble is, doesn't work with newer IEs etc. Blame Microsoft!
Be glad to, llucyy.
I still think that there is now quite a paradigm-shift.
How many buyers of Noteworthy do composing?
How many buyers of Noteworthy do (only) notating?
I do not compose. I do, however, put things in Noteworthy. For choir practise reasons. My "users" could use the viewer, but is so limited that it is hardly useful. But they would be greatly helped by a Noteworthy version that can open .nwc files, change them around a bit, choose instruments, set volumes, play them, play some bars, play their own staff, etc.
This version could be without any file saving or printing capabilities. Just for an End User Noteworthy, who does not necessarily know the difference between two clefs, and who hardly can tell a sharp from a natural at nightfall.
I think that, even though Noteworthy started for (and by) composers, it has been hijacked a bit by choir masters, barbershop singers, Scratch Messiah singers and more - who want to study their parts and find Noteworthy ideal.
The development of Noteworthy might reflect this (if or when I am right)
If I am right, the marketing of Noteworthy could change a bit. But I am no expert on that - but silver or even golden opportunities might be out there. With benefits for us all.
cheers,
Rob.
When I first tried Noteworthy Composer, back around 1996, I guess, version 1.30? there was a fully functional shareware version. If I recall there were two limitations - you could only save a song 10 times (but that was easy to get around), and when you printed, the logo was printed between each staff on the page. Nowadays that would be easy to beat, too, I imagine.
A modest rehearsal sound setup would need a computer with a better than stock sound card and an interface to the PA system. Is an additional $39USD too much more to spend to make it easy to use?
If you have the NWC2 user save the file as MIDI, I'm sure that there are any number of programs capable of rehearsal assistance.
As an aside, I would add that using an unregistered copy of NWC won't help with NWC2 files.
I guess the problem is that some of us write our music for groups, and we send the parts to our group members to listen to and play/sing along with. It's those people who wouldn't otherwise use the program who need the player or viewer. It's highly unlikely most of them would either want to buy NWC - they might not see for a notation processor or may have one of the other programs already.
To me, wether you use the program for composing or for practicing parts makes no difference. If it does what you want it to do, you should be willing to pay for it. I'm a little surprised at the notion that it is easy to hijack the freeware. This is not a major purchase, and besides, one may find that they have some talent for composing that they didn't realize they had. The beauty of the player is that I can send my compositions to someone who is not a musician, and they can view the lyrics and hear the tune. How nice is that?
You missed what I said. If I want to distribute my instrumental parts to my band members for them to woodshed, it's ME, not them, who wants them to be able to work with the NWC parts.
Hijacking freeware? Why would you? I said there were ways to get around the 10 save limit. That was a pretty weak protection - IIRC, all you had to do was save the file under a new name. The printing thing today would be a matter of printing to a file and removing the unwanted characters - I think. I don't have the talent nor the urge to try, and I don't think the limitation exists anymore anyway.
I have no need for the player, but the person who started this thread talked about the frustration of wanting someone to work on a passage near the end of a long chart, and having to wait while the song wends its way to that point from the beginning. Actually the workaround is to have the sender also send a midi version, then the recipient just has to play that back in a media player, which has a slider bar.
Anyway, you and I are on the same page. We admire what this program does, and we were willing to pay for it. And gotten a great deal of enjoyment and use out of it over the years.
Ole, If the file is for rehearsal purposes, you can cut the main file into pieces at suitable rehearsal figures ( Fig. A, Fig.B etc. or Bars 1-32, 33-64 or wherever a passage changes) with cut and paste techniques, making new files. Zip the whole lot together and send them to your members. When you buy backing CDs for choirs, that is how they come, so you can rehearse section by section. Obviously they still won't be able to do a small section, but it is better than having to run the whole 200 bars each time.
Alright David, I threw that one out just to see what I could catch. I should have learned my lesson. Sorry. I know you would never do such a thing. Love ya man!
No harm done, Fitzclan. My point was only that if it's freeware, there's no reason to hijack it. The other part of my message was re shareware, an effective way to market software, but which needs to have controls to keep people from using it forever without buying it.
Put a wet paint sign on a wall, and someone is bound to test the dryness. Same with any form of shareware protection. Some people love a challenge, particularly computer geeks.
I thank all who have read my note and offered their views on the issue. From some of the responses, I gather that a little clarification might help keep the discussion to the point: I bought my NWC 1.75 August 2005 and became NWC 2 Tester at the first opportunity. I have converted midi-files from various sources, or recorded from afresh, some 55 works in the repertoire of the choir of which I am a member, plus three full-blown masses (Dvorak, Puccini, and Haydn). The material has been produced for SATB in NWC-format and pdf-printerformat, with each voice accentuated, to cover the requirements of wife and myself, as well as the requirements of our fellow-choristers who also appeared to need a way of practising between our live sessions.
However, only 1/3 of our friends are skilled with a computer – the majority would not know what to to with the composer programme. They just need the 'NWC Composer 2 Viewer' with TWO additional features (1) free repeat positioning, (2) free adjustment of tempo. If the NWC-team could provide that, it would create no end of good-will for the programme, not only with us, I guess, but with choirs all over the world.
Personally, I think of the NWC as a tool not only for composers, but for everybody active in music. Moreover, it would be in the spirit of an open-source programme to place much required facilities at the disposal of both the labouring masses and of servants of the Higher Arts - don't you agree!
Kind regards, Ole Baekgaard
For rehearsal purposes, there are these things that I see as important. Some of them already addressed.
1. Go to any point, and play from there.
2. Play one staff only.
3. Play all staves minus one.
4. Change tempo.
5. Choose instruments, volume and stereo pan. That way, I do not have to put four different .nwc files on my internet pages.
I simply put everything on left channel, volume 80. Now, the tenor can go to his own staff, put it on 127/127 and it is "his" part.
In order for the viewer program to be Completely Uncrackable, it should simply compiled without printing and saving options! No hacker can add the features that are not there...
cheers,
Rob.
My solution to the free NWC viewer's limitations require a little more work on the part of the composer but do not require the viewer to purchase the registered program nor get around purchasing by work-arounds or hacks.
1. For long pieces-Cut and paste the shorter sections of the entire piece into separate NWC files and send them, labeled appropriately, along with the entire piece to your choristers.
2. To bring out individual voices for learning parts-Again this will require more than one NWC file. Simply reduce the volume for all other voices on each of Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Bass, putting the other voices in the background and label each NWC file with its highlighted voice. Send all individual part files along with the entire composition with all voices in their performance balance.
NWC files are so small that it is practical and not overloading of anyone's e-mail to send all the sub-files as an attachment to all choristers, regardless of their voice part. Just my $0.02 US on the subject.
Yes, well, that's all possible. But not handy. When I have worked hard on an 8-part choral piece, I do not like to send out 8 individual copies of a Noteworthy-file. It drives choir members mad. "Which one is mine?" Also, the process of creating these 8 files should not be interrupted by friendly offers of coffee, telephone calls, cats jumping on laps and so forth. I am bound to send out at least one wrong version.
I simply want the Noteworthy-viewer to be suitable for my "end users". As it is now, the viewer is not.
Greetings all,
It seems that quite a few of us are involved in generating training aids for choirs. I am a member of a Male Voice Choir (with 70 active choristers on stage at our opening concert for this year). Over the last 4 years I have gradually written 95 of the songs from our repertoire into NWC files, including the four Section parts (T1 T2 B1 B2) and the piano accompaniment, and have chosen strings for the play-back of the parts. I send out 2 files to each chorister for each song, namely:
(1) a "Section" version with the appropriate Section part at near full volume (120)and the other three parts reduced in volume to between 35 and 50, and
(2) an "Allparts" version with each part at full volume (so the chorister can practise singing against competing voices).
Certainly this means I need to make 5 separate files for each song, but this is fairly trivial once the full 4-part version is completed.
We have encouraged our choristers to get computers, and to activate email. If necessary we set up the program and the folders of songs for them and instruct them how to use the program. About 50 of them now use the system, and it makes an enormous difference to their rate of learning. It is really quite easy to distribute each new file by email to the four Sections. They just become "Groups" in my address book.
Like all who have contributed to this thread, I was disappointed at the limitations of the "Player" and later the "Viewer", but I quickly realised that the "eval" version of the program makes an excellent substitute. I now distribute the eval version to all choristers. This allows our choristers to stop and start anywhere, to change tempo, to play individual lines etc. etc. In fact everyone has virtually the full facilities of the program available to him, but he only has to learn the few operations necessary to play-back the files, as if the program were a superior "Noteworthy Player" with all the facilities you have all been wishing for! My mates do not want to know about the technicalities.
The one "limitation" of the eval version is that no-one can save a modified file when they've been mucking around with it! As far as I am concerned this is an enormous PLUS - it saves me from having to repair untold numbers of corrupted files. I wouldn't want to change this - ever.
I must say that the name "Noteworthy Composer" is treated with reverence by everyone in our Choir. It has become absolutely indispensible, (and perhaps something of a rod for my back!) Long may it reign!
Regards to all,
Bill D.
Using the evaluation version as a viewer may be fine for 1.75 users. But I have put all my chips on the Beta 2 version and consequently would have to convert all my production into NWC-generated midi-files before it could be read by eval-users. That would have several negative effects on the final scores, confuse the majority of my friends in the choir, and be like marching two steps forward and three backwards. Besides, being so old that every minute counts I am not going to do it!
I'd rather hope that someone in the creative departments of the NWC community recognizes the good sense in supplying the few priority services required to make the Viewer useful. Is it really that complicated, I wonder!
Kind regards, Ole Baekgaard
G'day Ole,
actually mate, the latest version of NWC2 can save in 1.75 format - you lose some NWC2 specific stuff, but it works... It should be fine for opening files in the eval.
This way, you can "have your cake and eat it too" :)
G'day to you too, Ole and Lawrie,
Having extolled the virtues of eval_1.75 as a temporary fix for a Viewer, I heartily agree with Ole that we all should urge for the additional features to be added to the existing Viewer.
There are plenty of precedents. For example Sibelius supplies the freebie "Scorch" plug-in, which is a really fantastic viewer for Sibelius files with a tempo slider, transposing capability, ability to stop and start anywhere, ability to print, ability to save as Sib files etc.
Like Ole, I really wonder is it all that complicated to enhance the already good 'Viewer' that reads both v1 and v2 files? The suggested enhancements are a regular feature of all the available MIDI players.
There must be lots of choir buffs out there who'd really appreciate it.
Bill D.
I do concur Bill, but I think an NWC viewer should have some less features than Scorch - Particularly saving and maybe printing...
Scorch is great 'cos Sibelius is so expensive, it is totally unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't absolutely have to have it, to buy it.
OTOH, NWC is such a bargain, it is not unreasonable to expect people who want to save and print to purchase it for those features.
Transposing, tempo adjustment, pausing and playback from any location is another story though... bring it on.
My comment RE NWC2 being able to save as NWC1 was simply to demonstrate that all is not completely lost... ;)
I must agree with Lawrie Pardy here. A few basic features to customize for your ears, and going from anywhere would be most useful for all. However, printing would have to be included in this new, improved viewer, as the current viewer already has a printing feature.
On the other hand, one could have the choice between getting NWC2 Viewer Basic-View, Play, Print OR NWC2 Viewer Deluxe-View, Play from any Point, transpose, slow down/speed up, but no printing.
Regardless, no saving, and no changing values or entering notes-we need to leave some market for the full version. ;-)
Dear NWC – Would someone in a relevant and competent position, who has taken note of, and become inspired by, the urgent discussion in this thread, come forward and say: - Enough of the talking, folks! Don't worry, we are going to do it! We'll have an improved version of the Viewer ready for you in about four weeks!
That would earn you the admiration and undying gratitude of at least one of your friends and clients: Yours ever, Ole
This is a fairly new request. I suspect Eric has only a limited amount of time to improve this inexpensive software suite, which I see as more a labour of love than a profitable enterprise.
I would prefer to see him fulfill the older posts to the wish-list, and add Viewer improvements that list.
Hi, David.
You say "This is a fairly new request."
Not that new - look at https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=3914 from ori itai on 2003-12-31.
MusicJohn, 3/Apr/07
I stand corrected.
3 and a quarter years ago seems barely a blink of an eye.
Wouldn't it be nice to see a list of the outstanding wishes posted to the wish list, in date order?
Let's not forget this viewer limitation:
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5804.msg37888#msg37888 (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5804.msg37888#msg37888)
My preferred fix for this would be for the colors to be saved with the song, but allowing the viewer to change colors would be an improvement.
Just for the heck of it I would like to know how many other notation software companies offer any kind of free player or viewer, (and I'm not speaking of trial or shareware intended to hook potential buyers). I'll bet there aren't many, if any. If my choristers use the program to the point that they can't do without it, and if my hornist doesn't want to go through 149 measures before his part begins, then they really should purchase the full version. I have to agree with David, (whether or not he wants to be associated with my point of view), there are wish list items that need tending to. I find it amazing that those recipients of a free program would ask for "improvements". In reality what they are asking is that the people at NWC work for nothing. 'Winning the admiration of many' alone doesn't cut it in the business world. I'm surprised that with all the talk on this topic, no one else seems to see the real issue here, or maybe they just don't want to speak out. (Of course it's possible that I could be wrong).
I want Noteworthy-viewers, usable ones, to be distributed thousands of times, or preferably millions of times. The percentage of viewer-users who think "this is great, I want the whole thing! What, only $39, I want it NOW!" is nearly constant. The more the merrier.
However, it is not for me to decide Noteworthy's marketing strategy.
(OT: the best strategy would be to convert everything in the CPDL into Noteworthy. The CPDL always ranks high when searching for a composition or song. We could throw together an unpaid CPDL Boost Committee, and get this show on the road. Haven't thought out an attack plan, though.)
Too many choristers find it hard enough to installing *anything*, even if it is free. If they have to pay, however feeble the amount, the percentage of Noteworthy users drops. And with that, the absolute number of Noteworthy buyers.
cheers,
Rob.
Not to beat this to death but... I am not a marketing strategist and I am sure there is some validity to what you say. Some potential buyers will be intrigued by the viewer capabilities and will purchase the product. I think that is the job of the shareware version but you're right, not everyone is looking through that particular venue. My point though is, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? If the viewer does everything you want it to do, you most likely will not buy the product. For example, I use an evaluation program for unzipping large files. I have used it for years and will continue to do so because it performs the function I need for free. The makers of that program in my view have cut their own throats. If there were serious limitations attatched, I would be forced to make a purchase if I wanted that particular functionality. As it is, they will not likely see any of my money. And let's be realistic, it's all about the money! - I am not familiar with the abbreviation CPDL so I cannot comment on that part of your post.
I tend to agree with Ole's and Rob's views.
When I make an arrangement, I do not want the singers who use my nwc files for rehearsing to be able to save changes to my original file. This soon leads to many different versions, I have seen this too many times. Therefore I would prefer the singers to use a version of the program/viewer that cannot save. Printing is nice to have, this way my arrangements can be easily distributed to the singers as nwc files. It is important that the singers can start anywhere in the score, and that they are able to change instruments and volumes to hear their own part.
Very few of our singers have the full NWC program. With the present viewer limitations, I normally distribute my files in midi format, to be played with midi players that give better playback control. I have to send the music to be printed separately as pdf. Obviously, a smart viewer would be much easier and much more effective for everybody.
Christian
I completely agree with Fitzclan. However, a profit could be made if this enhanced viewer came included with a registered NWC with a license that grants permission to distribute it to anyone you wish to distribute it ∞ times, not sell for profit...
This way, NWC would still get profit. To modify Fitzclan's quote, the person would be getting the milk from the person who bought the whole cow. :-)
A few weeks ago, I pointed out a problem concerning the NWC Viewer. Contrary to my expectations it became the topic of the month with 13 participants, 30 contributions, and close to a thousand readings so far. Thus encouraged, a week ago, I placed a proposal in the ”Wish List” for an improvement of the Viewer to include a free repeat and free adjustment of the replay speed and respectfully asked for a feed-back, but silence has reigned to this day!
I guess that we may be quite a few users who would like to know if NWC is going to do something about the Viewer.
Hopefully yours, Ole Baekgaard
Fitzclan, the CPDL is the Choral Public Domain Library, also known as the Choral Wiki.
For me, the two best sources of music are the Noteworthy Scriptorium and www.cpdl.org .
The latter has many contributions in pdf format, many in Finale, some in Noteworthy. Take a look around, you will not regret it. The number of interesting pieces of music that I was *not* looking for but found nevertheless is still rising. Having said that, I wish it were all in Noteworthy...
Concerning WinZip and others: their marketing strategy seems to be 'Everyone should know and use it, and businesses (who are scared to death to use unpaid software) will foot the bill."
Noteworthy could reason as follows: "Everyone should know and use it, and the composers foot the bill."
To make it more wonderful: I know a number of Noteworthy users who actually DID buy, and are nowhere near being a composer. This includes Me & Myself.
cheers,Rob.
I placed the same request as Ole's on the wish list and pointed out (again) that choristers are a special case because a high proportion of them do not usually have much musical education, yet they may be quite intensive users of some features of the program. They usually are not at all interested in writing music notation, but do need a versatile viewer/player for play-back of songs for home practice.
I still have high hopes that the suggested improvements will eventually be made to the excellent NWC Viewer so that my 500-odd training-aid files can continue to be useful to my colleagues without their having to rely on the evaluation program as a substitute Viewer.
Bill D.
Me too; being able to start and start the Player/Viewer anywhere would be great.
On the other hand ... all my NWC Choral Files are converted to Midi format, then revised into the several appropriate voice-emphasised versions (using Midisoft's "Recording Session"), and finally uploaded to my Website - http://www.thehoopers.demon.co.uk - from which my Choral colleagues can download the ones they want for use with a Midi File Player (preferably one that allows additional tempo and volume adjustment, such as "Session").
I wish - how I wish (and yes: it's in the List)! - that Noteworthy Composer contained a real-time Mixer Board!
MusicJohn, 16/Apr/07
Especially when the telephone rings at 22:13 in a 25:44 piece of music.
Or "What was that note?!??! What just happened?!?!! I need to hear that again!"
Or when one of the kids comes in with "Dad, I need..."
Or when the doorbell rings.
Or...
[Okay, I usually use NWC, so none of these things is a problem. But whenever I choose NWP, that's what happens. And most of my bandmates use NWP {still trying to get them to buy NWC...}]
So, that was that, the stir dies down and nothing changes. NWC-centre does not even comment. Rather odd, really, if ignoring customers is a general business policy.
Well, well, perhaps there is something out there that better meets my requirements. Methinks I'll start looking. To all who took an interest - thanks and kind regards,
Ole Baekgaard
Ole -
I wouldn't take silence by Noteworthy as them not listening. Past precedence says that they don't advertise upcoming features (unless it is extremely imminent). Who would have anticipated "user tools" until the day it showed up, and wow, look what you can do now?
That being said, it's their program and they set the priorities for what to work on if and when. But we've been very pleasantly surprised many times in the past.
Patience, grasshopper, patience...
Ahhh Ole
You should listen to the words of Master Po. He speaks wisely. Your request will have been noted.
Even if the fluttering of a butterfly's wings affect actions on the other side of the world, the progression of NoteWorthy happens in its own good time.
Master Po, look out. Someone is going to snatch a pebble from your hand.
Look where that kind of philosophy got the Chinese for more than 2000 years: Nowhere!
My choristers, however, would appreciate a solution here and now - and, if it is a matter of resources, 'free repeat' has first priority.
Practically yours, Ole
Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Having seen the present thread on the limitations of the NWC Viewer flounder into ”bla,bla,bla”, I set out to analyse the course of the discussion.
Among those that I dare to term supportive to my proposals I count 5 voices. A group in the middle, which I term ”Neutral and generally helpful”, comprises 7 voices. Distinctly adversary to my modest proposals about the Viewer one voice stands out - at times passionately and even indignantly - eventually supported by a prominent member of the neutral group who perhaps only now shows his true colors.
I have counted four contributions definitely constructive and helpful, even if I do consider their proposals second to my own: (1) Free repeat, and (2) Adjustment of speed of replay in the NWC Viewer.
All of this is quite entertaining, but also a bit frustrating by the fact that at no stage the NWC Inc. has let its own voice been heard. Why not? Are you not people? Don't you have a language to explain your views and priorities so that we, your clients and customers, understand and concur?
In conclusion to my own engagement in this discussion, I would remind NWC that you do have my email-address for a feed-back to my request on the wish-list, but I believe there would be more economy in sending a message here to an audience that have produced more that 1700 readings.
Kind regards, Ole
With respect, I don't think upgrading NWC Player, which is freeware, should be the
highest priority. There is a workaround: you can quickly create an image of your score to pdf using freeware such as
pdfcreator.exe and
acrobat reader, and send it to your colleagues as a
pdf file. They can open the sheet music on the screen. For playback, you can send them the midi export of your song, and they can open that in whatever media player they have. Adjusting the size of their windows, they can see both the pdf and the media player at the same time. And they can start, stop and repeat to their hearts' content.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to upgrading NWC Player, just more concerned about where to place the job in the heirarchy of user priorities.
If you want feedback from NWC staff, you might consider emailing them directly. The email address is support@noteworthysoftware.com.
Sir, I appreciate your use of the term ”workaround” because it indicates that you (1) recognize there is a problem; (2) consider your solution a temporary measure; (3) realise the importance of implementing a proper solution. For all this, I thank you heartily.
Having tested your workaround with an open mind and noted that the majority of our chorus members consider it rather a meager substitute for the real thing (and some of them do fumble around a lot, I am sorry to report), I have come to wonder what are the measures that you would give higher priority than the improvements to the viewer suggested.
If they are absolutely vital, why were they not solved in the recent update? If they are sophisticated refinement of details in an otherwise excellent programme like the present NWC2, they are bound to please fewer users than the thousands of choristers who would sing your praise in loud hosannas if you were to put your weight behind our modest request for making the viewer a useful tool.
With kind regards, Ole Baekgaard
I think the Viewer is a great gift horse and if you can send files to a Studio without
actually travelling with a memory stick everytime they can actually transfer your
work done into any midi program they might be using .I am pleased to see the
old "no we can't read Noteworthy "is history .
Ole, please don't put words in my mouth and please don't use your logic to explain my comments.
Priorities? I was involved in the private betatest of version 2 in late 2002 and have made many suggestions and requests in the betatest forum and the Wishlist. Many regular users have also made many requests in these forums and, I presume, in the Wishlist, too (we aren't privy to the contents of the Wishlist).
Eric has to set priorities, and my preference is that he deals with the outstanding requests from people who have spent the money to purchase a licence, and who have taken the time to learn the program and participate in its development, before he gets distracted by the desires for a freebie for those hypothetical thousands of choristers who can't be bothered to put their money where their mouths are.
Harumph.
Please excuse my rant. I really don't mind improving the viewer, but I don't think it should be top priority.
Oh, I am sorry – too much logic, too little harumph! I see now: - It is the freebie that stings. Well, the logical – umphh, there I go again! - psychological solution would be to charge a price for an improved version of the viewer, say half the price of the full programme for a single license with rebate for multiple ones. Perhaps not the smartest of marketing strategies, but it might set the misgivings of the 39-buck-spenders at rest.
And please be nice about my choristers: – They sing very well, yet struggle to improve all the time. Moreover, in our choir we pay more than 100$ annually per member to cover conductor's fee and cost of note sheets etc., so comments on our money and mouths are misplaced. We did not and do not insist that the NWC viewer should be free, but would rather have an easy-to-handle, low-tech, truly effective, and - all right - low-cost tool.
Still yours faithfully, Ole
G'day Ole,
may I refer you to a reply I made several months ago:
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5959.msg39153#msg39153
which you seem to have missed... At least I didn't see any comment from you about it.
I acknowledge that the ability to restart playback from a specific point in the viewer would be nice, but as stated in my previous reply, there is an option that is still free.
Download the eval for your choristers and save the files you want them to practice from in 1.75 format. This is a function that is inbuilt in the current release of NWC2. There is no need for you to change anything except how you save the copies they are to use.
There is no cost to anyone, full control for your choristers if, for instance, they would like to silence all staves but their own etc..
All in all an effective solution. Who knows, maybe some of them will be so impressed they'll buy a licence themselves. At least, in the mean time, they have to opportunity to play (pun intended), and they can't save over the file you distribute to them by accident - this is built in to the eval.
Ole, let me withdraw this part of my comment
It was uncalled for.
Can't help ask, tongue in cheek, "How large is your group, anyway?"
And finally,
Peace?
David
Well I'm with Ole on this one. There's really no point in producing a half finished item with obvious missing features.
To be usable it should at least have the features of a cassette recorder with FF and RW and Pause (or more modern point and click substitutes).
An incomplete solution is a bad advertisement. Better not to have it at all.
Att.: Lawrie Pardy
G'day to you too, Sir.
When end of March Bill Denholm introduced the idea of using the Evaluation version I turned it down perhaps a bit too categorically, partly because I had not discovered that NWC2 could export files in 1.75 format – and you very kindly put me right on that one straight away. However, in the next contributions you and Bill seemed to agree that nevertheless the Viewer ought to be improved, and I liked that better. Yet I downloaded the Eval version just in case, tried it out - and got confirmed my original stand. Why?
First, I have to-day abt. 380 choir-practice-files, of which about 40% are active and another 40% are potentially for re-use. They are the outcome of hundreds of hours of learning by trial and error, especially the latter. Many have been revised over and over again, only to have some fellow chorister come over and say: - You know, that 'd' in measure 63 should have been an 'e'. In short, I am not going to convert the lot into anything. I dont' find it in myself.
Secondly, let me quote the first text that meets the eye when you open the Eval version: ”I understand that this product is provided for the sole purpose of evaluating its capabilities, and that any other use requires the purchase of a license. Buy it now / I accept / Quit!” I did in fact buy a license for myself, and I take it you would not have me break my contract with NWC Inc. – would you!
Thank you, anyway, for your concern.
Att.: David Palmquist
Salamu aleikum!
Our local choir currently counts 46 members, and for the next couple of weeks my wife and I join another group of similar numbers in a Folk High Scool to work with Haydn's Missa Solemnis No 13 using, i.a., NWC practice-files notated and adapted by me. So that is of course not anyway near the ”thousands of choristers” that roused you to mild irony.
Have you noted, however, that among the people who joined in this discussion there are four more who use NWC for chorus training? At a modest average of 50 members per choir that makes 250.
In my country (Denmark) we have about 700 amateur choirs. When fishing around on the net, I easily catch 10 – 12 choirs that already use NWC for training purposes, and I'll bet you that we would soon double that number with a well-functioning Viewer. However, not to exaggerate I shall include only 10 and the same average: that's 500 - or a total of 750.
Denmark, however, is a very small country. Together our neighbouring countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany have several thousand amateur choirs, and mind you: I need only an additional 26 choirs of 50 members to pass the 2000 mark. And I have not even crossed the Alps, or the North Sea, or the Channel, or the Atlantic!
So, even if I speak on behalf of but a tiny fraction of choristers in this world, I have really been understating my case – let me adjust and ask you to imagine tens of thousand choristers singing your praise!
Yours, Ole
Thank you, Peter, for your comment (#53). I wish that a lot other people, particularly fellow choristers, would come out in support of the improvements requested.
Allow me just one brief additional argument re the use of the full or evaluation versions of NWC – then I shall really clam up!
It is hard to grasp for young people who have been raised with a computer mouse in their mouths (!?), and probably also for older people who have been able to take command of the computer technology, including the adepts of NWC, how confusing and alienating computers still are to the majority of lay people : Eyes flicker, minds go blank, all normal faculties defect, panic ensues, and sweat pours. It takes patient and kind instruction right from the very basics to make normal people use even quite simple computer functions. This is why the pure simplicity of the NWC Viewer is a distinct quality, one more reason why I don't like the Eval workaround, and also the reason why I have requested only the two absolutely vital improvements, viz. free return and adjustment of speed capabilities.
No more from here – have a nice day and be good! Ole
Hi, Ole.
You say "I wish that a lot other people, particularly fellow choristers, would come out in support of the improvements requested." but in truth on previous occasions in this Forum many have, including me. And while I agree that a more amenable Player would be good, I avoid the problem by converting everything into Midi format (and posting it on my Website: http://www.thehoopers.demon.co.uk ), which means that my Choir(s) - three of them, totalling perhaps 400 of various persuasions - can then download them as convenient, and manipulate the volumes and tempos any way they like using any one of the excellent, and usually free, Midi Players out there in Webland.
Regards,
MusicJohn, 22/Jun/07
G'day to you too Ole.
You say:
I'm happy to say that in our male-voice choir (nearly all retirees) we have been able to overcome the initial aversion to computers that afflicted many of our older members when I first introduced them to NWC back in 2001. In many cases I had to seek out second-hand computers, set them up with NWPlayer, then spend a few hours teaching the initially reluctant chorister how to use the system.
After the limitations of NWPlayer became a source of irritation we all changed over to the eval version of NWC (mainly to take advantage of the stop/start capabilities). Out of a total of 90 on our active list, I now have 53 very satisfied users. 50 of these are connected to the internet, so I can distribute each new training aid by email (with a few others by floppy disk to the very timid!). Ole, nobody had to change anything other than installing the eval program.
(An interesting side issue in passing. A few of the oldies still refuse to touch a computer. A few others who have had a bit of musical training in the past, flatly refuse to have anything to do with "synthetic" music generated by a computer even though they may use a computer for other purposes!)
I do not have a bad conscience about using the eval version as we do, because my colleagues are simply using it as an enhanced "Player" to replace the freebie Player or Viewer and do not use any of its other facilities. A few (six at the last count) have taken out licenses because they enjoy the program so much.
I can see that I am very lucky that we based our whole training -aid program right from the start on the use of NWC files. I think "Music John" is quite right in his praise of MIDI training aids, but my relatively untrained friends really appreciate having the notation on the screen with the lyric synchronised, particularly in the early learning phase for each new item.
I have one slight regret - that I can't distribute NWC2 files for playback with the eval_175 program. I'd dearly love to be able to use hairpins for example. This is why I strongly support Ole and others in begging for enhancement of NWC Viewer. With that I could sleep with a really clear conscience, and use the full facilities of the <you-beaut> NWC2!!
Cheers to all,
Musical people are so sympathetic, generous, and warm-hearted that usually they make poor politicians. This is obviously true also of the majority of the contributors to this thread who do their level best to help me overcome ”my” problems with the NWC Viewer, as if I were an old ninny which in fact I may be, but that is not the issue. Gentlemen (why are there no women around?), I suggest that our object should be to change the Viewer, not my ways! Rather than tell NWC Inc. that the complaints are not really serious and can easily be circumvented, why don't you, like good troopers, shoot in the same direction?!
I guess it is because you are people with more talent for music than for politics or soldiering, and thank God for that! Then never mind the d..... Viewer!
Now I better shut up, definitively! Yours ever, Ole
Ole,
I think your logic is askew. Just because many or even most of those who respond to a thread centering on choral issues doesn't mean that most NWC users are choal [only] musicians. It simply means that they responded to something that interests them. Those who share other interests musically speaking, respond to issues that interest them. I stay away from the technical stuff (programming etc.), because it leaves me cold, but others enjoy that aspect of this tool and can add to the knowledge pool.
While it is nice that NWC can be many things to many people, I would dare to say that it was probably created with the composer in mind, hence the name Noteworthy Composer. Not that it matters, whatever your use it's worth the modest price. The $100.00 annual fee that you collect is not helping the folks at NWC in any fashion. I suppose that the time required to implement the changes that you suggest would certainly cost them money however simple they may seem.
Would it be possible to use some part of the funds you collect to purchase licenses for each member, that way they could do all the things they want, and more. I understand that you are afraid that some might fiddle with the piece being practiced, (not that there's anything wrong with that!), but most choristers I know are pretty good at taking direction. Just a thought!
G'day Fitzclan,
umm, mate, I think you missed a point... Ole doesn't actually
collect that 100 bucks a year - I think he
pays it.
I must admit, I can easily see the advantage of a "pause" and a "start from here" function in the viewer - In fact, I'd love to have a "pause" function in NWC itself! I get soooo many interruptions that I often find myself listening to repeats of
repeats of repeats of repeats... (fades off into distance).
Oops, back again. Yes, I'd love that pause function in the editor - see no reason why it can't be in both!
Hey Lawrie,
Doesn't matter who collects it, it still doesn't help the NWC peeps. If they (those who do the singiing), rely that much on the program....well, we pretty much covered that already. I figure if I was in the shoes of the programmer, I wouldn't do it no matter how simple it was, for what I think are obvious reasons. It seemed to me from previous posts that Ole is the music director which would mean that he would probably have some input as to how the money is spent. I could be wrong. (It's happened once or twice before I think!)
Pause in NWC? Why not? To the wish list with you! Always a pleasure, mate.
I'd like to be able to play "last time only," just to avoid the tedious repeats when I'm playing back as part of my proofreading.
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5473.0
David
Take a look at my tip here https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5473.0 (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5473.0)
It may help you with this.
Thanks, Rich. Looks like something worth trying out. Cool.
Too bad you can't put the number of iterations on the master repeat close, eh? and set it to 0?
Back from two weeks with Haydn's Missa Solemnis No. 13 in B and 55 other straining choristers, I am absolutely convinced: - We need an improved NWC Viewer (free repeat positioning, and free adjustment of tempo), and we need it soon!
Would someone close to NWC Inc. please try and worm out what are his/their intentions and let this forum know.
Yours absolutely, Ole Baekgaard
Earlier this year, I communicated directly with NWC centre by email, as advised, and received a courteous enough recommendation to plan the coming season of rehearsal in my choir on the basis of the existing NWC Viewer capacities. I have therefore decided to shift to another supplier who is more sensitive to all segments of his market, including choir members and musicians who just want to use his product for rehearsal. Good bye to all who have taken the trouble to read this thread, and in particular to those of you who have considered the issue and taken the trouble to comment upon it, pro or con. I admire your patience, not only with me, but with NWC too.
Yours departing Ole Baekgaard
P.S. My wife, who has more sense in her little finger than I have got in my 'noodle' (Amadeus), says not to be silly considering that I am quite happy with NWC otherwise. So now I am in a quandary!
Hi, Ole Baekgaard.
I don't understand your problem.
NWC is fine for entering the notes, but with its Midi output you can use any of a huge variety of Midi Players, most - if not all - which allow you to adjust Tempo and Emphasis as you please (see my Website, http://www.thehoopers.demon.co.uk , but not, I'm sorry to say, the Creation Mass - which will be added in due course - which you can presently find at http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Sch%C3%B6pfungsmesse_%28Mass_no._13_in_Bb_Major%29_%28Franz_Joseph_Haydn%29 .
A Player like Session or van Basko - http://www.freesoft411.com/freeware/van-basko%60s-karaoke-player.html - will then do all you want!
MusicJohn, 21/Sep/07
No it will not, it will definitely not do all I want!
Van Basco is great, but it is not the answer. The great drawback is: you can't see the notes! I sing in two choirs where *every choir member* can read notes. What we want when rehearsing (some of us simply use a piano) is: the notes, the lyrics where they are supposed to be, the bar numbers, the dynamics (if any present). No midi player can supply this.
The thing is: the Noteworthy Player is nearly there. Just one small step would make it a Really Useful Program!
(thanks Rev. Audrey)
cheers,
Rob.
G'day Rob,
I fully understand your position. However, how much of a problem is it REALLY to have, say, vanBasco doing the playback and reading from a printed chart?
I know there'd be no note chase and that is really useful but surely it isn't the end of the world?
I'm not suggesting that additional playback controls aren't desireable 'cos they are, but as an interim measure..?
It seems logical to me that improvements in the player would raise the profile of NWC itself, but at what cost in the development of NWC2? If the extra code could be shared between both products that would be great, minimal diverted effort.
That said, is a modest re-evaluation of the viewers priority perhaps in order?
The pause functon might be the most important. If the restart could be done without resetting the MIDI environment, other freeware, like MidiOX, or even a HyperText Application might be able to alter volume, pitch and speed.
Lawrie,
You are, as always, understanding and kind.
No, it is not the end of the world. It's just that the viewer's users would benefit so much from a simple change.
Rehearse anywhere you like = make sure the files are somewhere (in gmail, on a site, ...) and use the viewer. But the viewer is not good enough for me. I use a workaround, now - but it's "grey usage" of Noteworthy.
If the change to the viewer is as simple as I think, hardly any precious time will be taken away from the NWC2 development. If not, I will simply not use the viewer - and never advise anyone to do so. Honestly!
The priority of a change is always a function of the real priority and its development time, plus a kludge factor. No need to re-prioritize, I think. NWC2 still rulez!
No hear, no see, no go!
NoteWorthy Composer 2 Viewer Limited!
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to all of you - Thirty Niners and Freebies alike! Yours, Ole Baekgaard
For some reason, I've missed the development of this thread - hadn't spotted it until Ole's latest post. (Some of you are probably thinking: maybe that's just as well....)
Two comments. First, Ole, please don't get upset because NWC hasn't replied to your comments in the Wish List or addressed this issue in the forum. This never happens on any feature request. It's obviously a policy decision on Eric's part, and I think it's correct. Though no one knows, most of us suspect this is pretty much a one-man show, and if he spent as much time telling us about what he's going to do next as we would like him to, it would never happen because he wouldn't have any time left for programming. I'd rather be surprised by features that actually appear than see promises of features that never materialize.
Second, Rick is absolutely correct about the pause button, which has been addressed many times before in this forum. It would make both the main program and the viewer much more useable, and since most of the same code could be used for both applications, it would have to be developed only once. Eric, I really think it's time to add this to your immediate to-do list (but I don't expect to find out about it 'til it happens: see previous paragraph).
I will add only that, as a full-time composer, I seem to be somewhat unusual among NWC's users, at least judging from this thread; and I will join Ole in wishing everyone a very merry Christmas and happy new year.
Bill
You know, you can download the free browser plugin npnwcw32 for use with Mozilla Firefox or Opera. Firefox is a free download and will run on the computer as well as Internet Explorer and doesn't have to be the default browser. But if you copy the npnwcw32.dll into the plugin folder you can open NWC files in the browser window and play them. There is also a position slider where you can start from. You can't select the exact bar(measure) but pretty close, then pause - then back etc. Not perfect but better than starting from the beginning again. And Firefox is a big plus anyway as a browser.