NoteWorthy Composer Forum

This one wart on its nose makes NoteWorthy a joke as a serious printing program

... the horror of using NoteWorthy to engrave a score

This whole area of tricker

I just think that there are a few needless

the standards of music engraving demand that all and only those staves so marked should have an orchestral bracket, and that the tops and bottoms of each such bracket in the system must have little circular finials.

the standards of music engraving demand that all and only those staves so marked should have an orchestral bracket, and that the tops and bottoms of each such bracket in the system must have little circular finials.

What is your reference to support this

In this case, I think the best tired old saw is "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". 

...as well as provide an alternative to dragging over items to select them.

Lawrie
   Your keyboard synonym for a mouse movement, which I use along with shift and click to select long stretches without worrying about "catching" the scroll at the right instant are still "dragging over".  And they don't solve the problem of editing notes in a chord.  The ability to select and modify the individual notes of a chord in the same way as notes not combined in chords would go a long way toward making NoteWorthy a whole lot better.  But it doesn't make the thing unusable, so I can wait for it.  Remember, "Only Death comes to he who waits."

The behavior of the orchestral staff attribute is not an unimplemented RFP item, it is something that is implemented and is done wrong

   Finally, I must insist that neither "unexpectedness" nor the programmer's intent has anything to do with the definition of the term "bug" as used in the software industry.  If the result is wrong, it's a bug, period.

   There is a good reason that I harp on the Orchestral Staff Attribute, and that is that it's use is required in nearly every score of any complexity at all, while NoteWorthy's behavior is utterly unacceptable for any purpose whatever.  It would also seem utterly trivial to fix.

   My main use of NoteWorthy requires that I distribute .nwc files, in which kludges, workarounds, separate visual and sounding staves and the like are unacceptable.  My workaround is to print the music without using orchestral staves, print separate pages with orchestral braces of each required length on otherwise blank staves and combine them graphically using Windows Paint.  This is acceptable because I scan all the music I deal with anyway, and before I do the OMR step with Sharp Eye (or when I print music my club holds copyright to (or which is public domain)), I usually need to do considerable graphical restoration (like fixing loose leaf holes punched through clefs) of this same sort.

   Indeed, one of NoteWorthy's better attributes is its nearly complete bilingualism between keyboard and mouse, which is getting rarer every year.  The ability to select by clicking on as well as dragging over would be completely compatible with the current usage, and Lawrie's suggested keyboard synonym for a click on a chord note is, as far as I can see, perfect. 

The need for such a facility is acute in my case because of the extensive editing I must to do in correcting NoteWorthy's atrocious enharmonic spelling, especially in the piano accompaniment. 

I would also like to see the requirement that all selected notes have the same duration before the duration set button (or keystroke) is activated be dropped, as it adds nothing to either function or safety, and makes the correction of the tied figures MIDI input makes of triplets more difficult.

   Finally, I must insist that neither "unexpectedness" nor the programmer's intent has anything to do with the definition of the term "bug" as used in the software industry.  If the result is wrong, it's a bug, period.

<snip>

Lawrie
            If you can't respond to the general tenor of my remarks, at least reply to full sentences.  I never said NoteWorthy as a whole is unacceptable, only it's way of handling the Orchestral Staff Property.

   There is a good reason that I harp on the Orchestral Staff Attribute, and that is that it's use is required in nearly every score of any complexity at all, while NoteWorthy's behavior is utterly unacceptable for any purpose whatever.  It would also seem utterly trivial to fix.

            You got me backwards.  It's the sound that's important, and for distribution to forty or more choristers of varying sophistication, anything tricky would only cause problems.

            In my experience, audit enharmonic spelling gives the same results as midi input conversion, as it should.  It's just that whoever wrote the code apparently wasn't a musician.  Enharmonic spelling is not totally straightforward and there are cases where a composer will shift the spelling of a note to indicate it's changed function in the harmony, but I am told by my conductor that NoteWorthy just plane gets many unambiguous cases wrong.

            Look at a couple of hundred scores and find one that does it NoteWorthy's way (an orchestral brace extending through the piano grand staff with a finial at the top but not the bottom).  If you do, I will show you an engraver who didn't know what he was doing (or a score printed from NoteWorthy).  In this case the only acceptable authority is actual practice.  Some random joker's signed statement doesn't hack it.  And I advise you to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to defend Eric, I'm sure he can do a better job himself, and when the discussion gets to the point where he chooses to do so, I'm sure he will.

I would also like to see the requirement that all selected notes have the same duration before the duration set button (or keystroke) is activated be dropped, as it adds nothing to either function or safety, and makes the correction of the tied figures MIDI input makes of triplets more difficult.

Sharpeye is no dog. But a Sharpei is. It's a joke.

<snip>
In this case the only acceptable authority is actual practice.  Some random joker's signed statement doesn't hack it.  And I advise you to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to defend Eric, I'm sure he can do a better job himself, and when the discussion gets to the point where he chooses to do so, I'm sure he will.

Lawrie,
You got the reference to the unknown authority you assume Eric to have worked from correctly.  If you are not embarrassed by throwing such a thing out in defense of someone who did not ask for your help, you should be.  I agree that Eric is unlikely to join the forum on this; he will most likely either continue to ignore the issue or fix it silently.

You apparently have never sent an .nwc file to a non-computer savvy singer.  All the things that are "hidden" in the printout just hang out in a different color.  It is the NoteWorthy file that is my product, and I must expect my customers to further edit it, so hidden staves are also not really hidden.  Trickery of any kind would be fatal to this enterprise.

we'd need both an upper orchestral staff and a lower orchestral staff attribute

<snip>
But I disagree vehemently that the shortcoming is trivial, and so do quite a few others.

I am wondering if it is worth bringing an issue to this forum.
<snip>

To answer your question, Lawrie, just about any of us who regularly perform single parts from multi-voice scores find it helpful to have groups of parts set off by brackets.

Thanks again for your always clear, helpful, and friendly comments.

If one is preparing scores for multiple parts/instruments/voices why wouldn't one print the separate single parts?  To me this seems such a logical move. 

If one is preparing scores for multiple parts/instruments/voices why wouldn't one print the separate single parts?  To me this seems such a logical move.  Reduced page turns, easier to find your place, thinner portfolio...

However, I would have thought that for a performance they would have preferred the single parts.  For rehearsal I can absolutely understand but by the time a performance came along surely they would know the piece well enough that their single parts would suffice?

<snip>
They politely handed them back and asked for individual parts. Like I said, you just never know. ;-)

Yes, we should take Dave's advice and

<snip a big bit>

<snip another big bit>
I checked out the suggestion that in NW2, notes of varying time values could be forced to a common value with a single keystroke, but the tool bar still grays out the note length toolbar buttons, so the problem is only half fixed, and this introduces a bug in that the product is now inconsistent with itself. 

The suggested MXML translator requires a fourteen hour download of net frameworks for Windows 98SE, and while I am in the process of converting to XP professional, that will take some time, and I suspect it will need the download too.

The user tools require learning PHP, which is significant even for a multi-lingual former professional, and my time is limited.  Also, for my purposes I must strip most dynamic and tempo markings out of the .nwc files anyway (I am building a skeleton outline of the music containing only the basic tones and rhythms for musicians to learn the notes from), so if the spelling and triplet detection problems were fixed, a midi file would contain most of what I need.

Finally, everything I do must be compatible with NW1, as this is all that is available to my customers.

I checked out the suggestion that in NW2, notes of varying time values could be forced to a common value with a single keystroke, but the tool bar still grays out the note length toolbar buttons

The suggested MXML translator requires a fourteen hour download of net frameworks for Windows 98SE, and while I am in the process of converting to XP professional, that will take some time, and I suspect it will need the download too.

To slow faster works for initial practice sessions, the tempo must be adjusted by edit,

I routinely exclude accompaniment staves from the display, but they pop up anyway in the mute list, and besides, I cannot control what a customer who discovers the page setup button does with it.  It is in this sense that I said there is really no such thing as a hidden staff.

Or the even more frequent "I recall seeing x somewhere but I'm too lazy to look it up."

Quote

The suggested MXML translator requires a fourteen hour download of net frameworks for Windows 98SE, and while I am in the process of converting to XP professional, that will take some time, and I suspect it will need the download too.

Would you please clarify this?  I don't undertand the expression "net frameworks," but I run XP Pro, and I did have Win98 (not SE) and Windows 3.1 after several years with DOS.

I think my first modem ran at something like 9 baud (does that sound realistic? It's been a long time).  I've downloaded and installed a lot of freeware and shareware, and I don't think I've enver encounterd a 14 hour download, even on a telephone modem. The XML conversion file is only 56Kb, and is accompanied by 3 text files that combined come to 6Kb.  Obviously I'm missing something about your setup.

<snip>
   As to what I am trying to do with NoteWorthy.  I am using it in a live professional environment to provide practice aids for home study to two choral societies.  I issue, by e-mail, packets of around eighteen works averaging ten to twelve pages each in four choir voices and piano accompaniment, which often requires two staves per hand.  The singers must edit their personal copies to get a proper balance of volume out of the various staves, both because there are two incompatible "standards" for interpreting the midi velocity attribute (in synthesized and wave table implementations, with much variation even within a group) and because each singer will want a different balance between his voice and the others, perhaps starting with the others muted, then quieter than his, then all at full volume and finally, especially for quartet singers, his own voice muted while the others sing out, as he will experience in performance.  To slow faster works for initial practice sessions, the tempo must be adjusted by edit, as there is no tempo slider on the tool bar (that being the one and only advantage Sibelius has over NoteWorthy), and in songs with major tempo changes mid work, the singer must master NoteWorthy enough to find and change embedded tempo indications, which sounds trivial, but often causes trouble.  More advanced singers will want to add breath marks and dynamics, which I cannot put in the distribution because they aren't decided until rehearsals are well underway, as well as correct errors, both mine and those in the original scores I work from.  I routinely exclude accompaniment staves from the display, but they pop up anyway in the mute list, and besides, I cannot control what a customer who discovers the page setup button does with it.  It is in this sense that I said there is really no such thing as a hidden staff.
<snip>

I do confess to being a little surprised at how demanding you choristers seem to be - it has never really occurred to me to feel a need to have everyone else's music in front of me - it has always been enough to manage to plow through my own and let the others worry about theirs...  :)

Is singing in a choir so different to playing an instrument that you really need that much information?  Or is it a "comfort" thing?

Is singing in a choir so different to playing an instrument that you really need that much information?  Or is it a "comfort" thing?

The human voice has no intrinsic pitch so it must get its notes relative to the other parts. So it helps to know what the other parts are singing

When I got to the final rehearsal, I found that the instrumentalists had all gotten together, pasted up their parts into a full score minus soprano, and made copies for each of them. (They could have just asked me or the soprano for a copy of the full score, of course, but that's not what happened.)

how would that work, another thick line joining the affected staves with additional finials?

how would that work, another thick line joining the affected staves with additional finials?

<snip>
....but I think you're getting more complex than necessary, Lawrie. Here's another way:

• When an orchestral staff is followed or preceded by a standard staff, the program puts the appropriate finial on the orchestral staff.

• The beginning barline of a standard staff is optional (same set of choices as the ending barline is now).

• Connecting barlines default to the barline style of the standard staff, except within brackets.

Wouldn't our needs all be addressed if we had two more staff choices, upper left finial and lower left finial?

Lawrie, I don't see why you don't connect alto 1 to alto 2 and both to tenor 1, but the point is, it's your score and you have the flexibility to make that choice.  I'm not too concerned if my score meets some degree of perfect presentation, as long as the user can use it easily, which means what I do has to make sense to my user.  A missing twiddly bit here or a variation from a standard might annoy someone, but as long as the grouping is clear and is satisfactory for the conductor, that's all I need to produce.

You guys have gone off the deep end here.  The current dialogue box is sufficient for a basic but correct implementation of the orchestral brace.  The rules are; 1) all and only those staves marked orchestral have the extra line at the left, 2) adjacent orchestral staves are connected, both at the left and by bar lines for the rest of the system, 3) loose ends get finials.  If you must have orchestral braces overlap a grand staff, which I have never seen in any score I have read, you would need extra windows or attributes, but I say leave it out.  Nested orchestral braces are used, but I would call that an advanced feature for the wish list.

<snip a lot of other products>
vanBasco's Karaoke Player – Intriguing, especially as it's freeware.  But NoteWorthy minus just a couple of bugs would be exactly what I want, so this would be a distant second choice.

NoteWorthy player – Adding enough to this to make it minimally useful to me would make it essentially full NoteWorthy.  Besides, if my push my guys to buy legit copies of NW1 (most just use the evaluation version), that would help pay for some of the improvements that I really want, as well as help push NW2 out the door.

• Choristers in general are not professional or trained musicians. Few would be able to read a single line of notation and fit it in with others doing or failing to do likewise

As I said in my reply to David, a checkbox and 2 radio buttons is all that's really needed.

an orchestral bracket that stops and starts where the orchestral staves do instead of continuing from the first orchestral staff all the way to the bottom of the score regardless of the actual staff properties down there

And for the same reason, I think we'll need an upper orchestral staff type. We need to be able to designate where we want the brackets to start and stop.

Sorry about the deep end,

...and I agree control over connecting bar lines would be good, but if you think about it there is no need for lower and upper orchestral staff attributes.  Any number of staves (including one only) can be marked orchestral, and any number of staves between be unmarked.  Then all raw ends get decorated, and the direction of curve is obvious from the context. That "backward compatibility" need not really be an issue here is one sign (though not a defining one) that the current behavior is a bug.

VanBasco does not display music notation, and helping the less musically trained singer learn to read is a big part of my objective. 

   I am not irritated at the "intricacies" of NoteWorthy, which is about the simplest music editor around to use.

<snip the snarky bit>
 through my conductor (a sophisticated trained musician who earns his keep as a computer analyst), to the group's floating voice leader who sings any voice at sight.  And although he hasn't shown up yet, I must be ready to face the singer even more computer savvy than I am, so I want everything neat and tidy.

Did you realise that you're your first example shows almost exactly NWC's bahaviour?

Almost, except NWC puts a finial on the lowest staff.

You guys can argue about special cases and the possibility someone may want to do a "nonstandard" thing (as far as standards exist) all you want.  I just want to get the thing to work for 85% of the cases that need orchestral braces instead of the 0.1% that get covered now.  (A two staff barbershop rendering is got right, finials and all, but this victory is tempered by the fact that barbershop is usually sung from memory.)

...orchestral braces overlap a grand staff, which I have never seen in any score I have read...

but I say leave it out.

First, I never would consider a singer more computer savvy than I am "competition".  On the other hand, he is the last person to whom I would want to explain why I used an ugly kludge to get a desired result. 

<snip>
I don't pretend to be anything but an advocate for my subspecialty. 

As far as "backward compatibility" goes, I think it very unlikely that fixing this problem would change the result of a successful kludge, except to make it unnecessary.  I leave it to the usual gadflies to provide a counterexample. 

2 : a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism

1. A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
2. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.

2. a person who persistently annoys or provokes others with criticism, schemes, ideas, demands, requests, etc. 

"Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant.

G'day Rob,
oops, mustn't have been very clear - it was the 0.1% part of the comment I was referring to...  I reckon that, warts and all, NWC is getting this right more often than 0.1% of the time hence my remark that I feel he is exaggerating...