Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Default stem directions (Read 46199 times) previous topic - next topic

Default stem directions

   I spend my day keying in choral works - presently Handel's "Jephtha" - for rehearsal purposes, before uploading them in MIDI format to my Website ... http://www.thehoopers.demon.co.uk .  I mostly use NWC1, though occasionally I use Version 2 (and I'm slowly getting to grips with the latter).  NWC seems every time to make the default stem for an unbeamed treble clef "b" (middle line) or bass clef "d" (middle line) a down one, and yet almost invariably the scores I work from make that note a stem-up one (I say "almost", because in a run of notes, especially in a choral staff, the stem direction in the score is adjusted to make it fit that of either the notes before or the notes after, whichever is most appropriate; I presume there are rules about this, though I don't know what they are).

   I know, of course, that the stem direction of a note can be manually adjusted (select: shift|cursor up, or down, as required), as can the stem directions of all notes for the relevant staff entered after the adjustment, but I would like to know why NWC always chooses the middle line default stem as down, and whether it might be possible optionally to change this default to whatever matches the score I am working from.

   MusicJohn, 7/Apr/09

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #1 –
I can see why stem down would be a default for a middle line note.  For 8th notes and shorter a stem down note takes up less horizontal space since the flag can use the same space as the note itself rather than note-stem-flag.

A user tool or a good text editor (for nwctxt) which can handle "regular expressions" should be able to fix this fairly quickly.
Since 1998

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #2 –
Stem direction on the middle line of a staff is subject to so many variables that I would hesitate to recommend that NWC try to take them all into account - it might double the size of the program ;-). Is the melodic line ascending or descending? Does it shift direction within a note or two? Are we dealing with half notes, or with eighth notes? Barred or unbarred? On which beat, or on which sub-beat within the beat? All of these things can make a difference. I curse the default stem direction often, but I don't see a solution. Either direction Eric chose as the default would have a fifty per cent chance of being wrong every time.

The stem direction fix I would like to see has to do with shifting barred groups of notes. When you shift unbarred notes up or down the staff, the stem changes direction appropriately as you cross over that middle line. Barred notes don't. Take a barred F#-G at the bottom of the treble staff, with the stems appropriately up - move it up an octave - and presto! the stems remain inappropriately up, while all around them turn appropriately down. Why is this? I realize that NWC must align all the stems in a barred group in the same direction, and that the "stem up" and "stem down" commands provide a ready-made way to do this. But it isn't always an appropriate way.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #3 –
Unbeamed notes do not have to have a stem direction while beamed notes do.  Once they have a stem attribute, it has to be changed by force (audit note stems, etc).
Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:3
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:2
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-1
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-3
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-4
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-5
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-6
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-7
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-8
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-9
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-1|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-3|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-5|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-6|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-7|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-9|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Since 1998

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #4 –

Quote from: Warren Porter
Unbeamed notes do not have to have a stem direction while beamed notes do.  Once they have a stem attribute, it has to be changed by force (audit note stems, etc).

Which is precisely the problem.

IMHO, the "stem direction" attribute should be applied only at the discretion of the user. The program shouldn't be using it to set the stem directions for barred notes any more than it uses it for unbarred notes. Another method should be found to line up the stems of barred groups and make sure they're all pointing in the same direction. A brute-force method, like simply counting the number of notes in a barred group that are above and below the middle line of the staff, averaging, and setting the stem direction accordingly, would be adequate. Something like that is already done for unbarred notes, just without the need for averaging.

Or maybe a good drill sergeant....

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #5 –
At the risk of being an "odd man out" I actually prefer the current behaviour...  Now, let me 'splain 'fore ya chuck them brickbats... ;)

Consider, when layering to achieve multiple voices, the upper voice needs stems up and lower voice needs stems down - REGARDLESS of position on the staff - I definitely do NOT want automatic stem direction change of beamed groups on shifting up or down 'cos this would be a problem...

So: no automatic correction and manually fix things sometimes OR automatic correction and manually fix things sometimes - I guess the "sometimes"es would probably balance each other out.

For single voices a quick stem audit is no big deal.  Much easier than selecting everything on a staff and then selecting stem direction.  For multiple voices stem direction is automagic already and should probably not be changed.

IMHO there are higher priority updates that should be considered first.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #6 –
Lawrie, I don't disagree with you often, and I don't disagree with you very much here. But if you go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll see the problem with using "Stem Audit" to correct two barred eighth notes with their stems pointing the wrong direction in the middle of a long composition. Audits only work on the whole staff. When you use Stem Audit, all the stems on the middle line of the staff obediently flip downward - even the ones you've very carefully flipped upward because the downward stem on the middle line is only right half the time. The only exception to this is in two-part writing. When you have two voices on a single staff, NWC does very carefully keep the upper-voice stems up and the lower-voice stems down. Otherwise, it blindly follows a simple rule that says "all notes below the middle line - stems up; all voices on the middle line and above; stems down." And that isn't always correct.

I agree that it would be a problem if stems on the upper voice flipped downward automatically as they passed the middle line while the user was shifting the music upward. But I see no reason why that should happen. Stem direction for two-part writing is already handled differently than stem direction for single-part writing. There's no reason to change that behavior. There is a reason to change the behavior of the program in regard to stems on barred notes in a single-voice part.

But, yeah - it's probably a lower priority than fixing the behavior of slurs across systems.

Cheers,

Bill 

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #7 –
G'day Bill,
Quote from: William Ashworth –
...Otherwise, it blindly follows a simple rule that says "all notes below the middle line - stems up; all voices on the middle line and above; stems down." And that isn't always correct.

Hmm, this could get intrustin'...  :)

My Alfred's states categorically that this is correct behaviour.
From page 304 of my edition of Essential Dictionary of Music Notation:

STEM DIRECTION

For notes on the middle line and above, the stem is down.

For notes below the middle line, the stem is up.

====
There are other provisos for cases where there is a shared staff or shared stem etc., but when there is a single voice, the above "rule" is definitive.

Beamed notes pretty much follow the same rules as multiple notes on a single stem - basically, if there are 2 heads then the head furthest from the centre line has dominance, if the notes are equidistant about the centre then stem down.  For more than two heads then the head furthest away rule applies unless the outer notes are equidistant from the centre line in which case the "majority" rules: I.E. If most notes are on or above the middle line then stem down, if most are below the middle line then stem up.

One almost obsolete practice allows for a "pattern of stem direction" where the above rules can be somewhat suspended.
====

FWIW, as far as I can recall, I've never seen any commercial, printed music that "breaks" these rules.  I have, of course, seen hand written stuff that does.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #8 –
Alfred's is quick to label practices as obsolete when they are difficult to implement with software.
Ultimately they may be correct, since almost all new music is typeset with computers.

In older music, stems are often flipped to avoid lyrics.

These workarounds will make stems 'Audit Note Stem' proof:
Quote from: just try to audit me
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|TimeSig|Signature:2/4
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Bar
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Down,VertOffset=-2000|Dur2:4th|Pos2:0
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:-4z^|Opts:NoLegerLines,Muted|Visibility:Never
|Chord|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First|Dur2:Whole|Pos2:-4z
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
The first method was enabled <here>. A side effect is that it will cause tighter spacing of upflags.

The second method is needed when notes are beamed since inexplicably, NoteWorthy will not allow notes in a RestChord to be beamed. Side effects of this method are a slight amount of vertical space in the editor, a change in lyric placement, and a spurious 'note off' in the MIDI outut. The spurious 'note off' should rarely be a problem. The rare problem can be fixed by moving the whole note to another position.

Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #9 –
   This hare may run and run.

   So: has dear Alfred changed his mind since Novello printed my ancient "Original Octavo Edition" hardback copy of "Jephtha" in ... hmmm, it doesn't say - like most old music scores! - but it cost 2/6 (2 shillings and six pence, for those across the pond) so I would guess around 1900-1910.  Throughout, all the "single" middle-line notes for the Singers are stem up. However, in my brand new "New Novello Choral Edition" copy of "Messiah" such notes are much more obviously adjusted to "fit" their neighbours - so in a group of separate notes above the line that includes a separate middle-line note that latter is also stem down, whereas in a group below the line a separate note on the middle line is stem up.

   My second question remains: would it be possible to make the default stem direction of a separate (unbeamed) middle line note optionally one way or the other - and, I suppose, would it be worth it?

   MusicJohn, 8/Apr/09


   

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #10 –
Good morning, Lawrie -

You're right. This is gettin' intrustin'.

As Rick points out, Alfred's is not holy writ, and its rules are not necessarily carved in stone. Sometimes they are oversimplified. This is one of those cases.

The practice I was taught - as a practice, not a rule - was that stems on the middle line follow the direction of the stem preceding them. This could be altered at the copyist's discretion - as could stem directions elsewhere in the staff. I have a collection of music in my library where the stem of a note on the space below the middle line was occasionally down. This was in places where there was only one note below the middle line in a measure full of black notes, and the copyist clearly thought it would be easier to read if all the stems went the same direction. (This collection, by the way, was published by Harvard University and edited by Willi Apel, who was pretty much next to God as a musical authority in the middle of the 20th century. I'm not suggesting that NWC should be configured to follow his example, only pointing out that Alfred's is not the only, or even necessarily the most authoritative, source for information on proper notation.)

I have also looked back a bit further in my library, to the work of Percy Goetschius around 1915. The textbooks he wrote were the standard ones in use in the generation just before mine (I graduated from college in 1965). In the examples in his books, I can't find a single case where the stem of a middle-line note isn't the same as the stem of the note right before it. So about 50% are up and the other 50% are down.

OK. Apel and Goetschius are both dead, and therefore "obsolete." I still think the practice they followed looks better on the page, and is therefore easier to read, than always putting the stem down on the middle line. So I still follow it. Therefore I cannot use the Stem Audit function of NWC as it is currently configured. And therefore the directions of barred (beamed) notes in my music that have been transposed by using <shift><ctrl><arrow key> often end up wrong. I try to catch them during proofreading, but I sometimes miss. Which is embarassing when the music gets into the hands of a performer, who scratches her head and says "Why....?" So I would really like to get this fixed.

I hope this doesn't sound too cantankerous.

Cheers from my side of the Pacific,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #11 –
Quote from: MusicJohn –
... I would like to know why NWC always chooses the middle line default stem as down ...
Probably because it evolved from a very simple program rather than a rigorous plan of adhering to musical convention.

<Here> is how LilyPond deals with this.

Had anyone known that, over 14 years, NoteWorthy would grow to its current sophistication, provisions might have been made to distinguish settings made by the user from those made by the program. Alas, we must get by with being able to override automatic program settings.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #12 –
G'day Bill and Rick et al,
more as a curiosity than anything else I decided that a quick search of the 'net was in order - you know, just to see if I could find other references and what they had to say.

Found some interesting sites, but so far, they all seem to agree with what I found in my Alfred's...  One site said it rather well:
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/music/burnette/notation.htm

Then I found this one.  It's a PDF of a document published by "Music Publishers' Association of the United States":
http://mpa.org/music_notation/standard_practice.pdf
Page 3 has the relevant detail.

So my conclusion is, modern practice seems to be as NWC implements its defaults. 

As for what we actually want to use, the ultimate aim should always be for best readability, and that can actually be very subjective.  This is one of the reasons I like standards - without 'em we would be limited in our ability to co-operate, BUT standards also need to have a degree of flexibility or they stop being an aid and instead become a hindrance.

Lawrie's latest $0.02 AUD  ;)
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #13 –
The MPA document is a very nice summation of standard notation practice, Lawrie - thanks for finding it. I've saved a copy of the pdf to my computer.

However, please also note this statement on p. 2:
Quote
Most of these rules are not necessarily rigid, and clarity to the performer's eye is always a consideration.

Call me old-fashioned - or an old f-something - but I still prefer the stem direction practice as exemplified by Apel and Goetschius for "clarity to the performer's eye." So I guess I'll keep using it, and keep not using Stem Audit.

Cheers once more -

Bill

P.S.: I tried to attach a pdf of a page from a Goetschius textbook, so you could see what I was talking about, but I couldn't get the file size down small enough to post and still retain legibility. So you'll just have to take my word for it.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #14 –
G'day Bill,
Quote from: William Ashworth –
However, please also note this statement on p. 2:
...but I still prefer the stem direction practice as exemplified by Apel and Goetschius for "clarity to the performer's eye." So I guess I'll keep using it, and keep not using Stem Audit.

Umm, yup, I think I made allowance for this in my little caveat:

Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
As for what we actually want to use, the ultimate aim should always be for best readability, and that can actually be very subjective.  This is one of the reasons I like standards - without 'em we would be limited in our ability to co-operate, BUT standards also need to have a degree of flexibility or they stop being an aid and instead become a hindrance.

In the end, readability is often as much what we are used to as anything.  I'm accustomed to stem down for the middle line...

Perhaps a user tool might be in order to "correct" those pesky middle line stem directions after a stem audit?
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #15 –
   I thought I'd add a final comment here that probably reveals the age of the "Jephtha" score I'm keying in.  Though crotchets (quarter notes) and smaller having down stems are fine, with minims (half notes) which have a down stem the stem is on the right rather than on the left, so the note looks like the letter "q" rather than the letter "p".  Amazing!

   MusicJohn, 9/Apr/09
 

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #16 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
I tried to attach a pdf of a page from a Goetschius textbook, so you could see what I was talking about, but I couldn't get the file size down small enough to post and still retain legibility. So you'll just have to take my word for it.
Try getting the best scan possible. 200dpi or 300 dpi if 200 is unreadable. Then:
  • reduce the gamma to 0.2 or a bit higher if that is too dense
  • convert to black & white
  • convert to 'png' using maximum compression
  • if using IrfanView, use the 'PNGOUT' plugin. This step can take a long time
If it is still too long, crop it down to several images. You can attach up to 4 images to a single post.

B&W 'tiff' images using 'CCITT Fax4' compression are usually smaller than the best 'png' compression, but you can't attach 'tiffs' here. You can attach them in the newsgroup. Go figure.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
inexplicably, NoteWorthy will not allow notes in a RestChord to be beamed.

Well it's actually explicable (but nevertheless unwarrantable and should be fixed). I'd imagine the rest-chord grew out of the multi-duration chord, and there you can only beam (sensibly in fact) the shorter duration note. Now in a rest-chord the shorter duration component is the rest, which obviously can't be beamed, so there is no way for the longer component (the note) to be beamed.

There are two things needed here. The first is to allow the rest to be longer than the note, and then, if the rest is the same length (or longer) than the note, then the note becomes the shorter component and can be beamed just as in a multi-duration chord.

I stand to be corrected, but I can't actually envisage in real life beaming a longer note when accompanied by a shorter rest.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Peter Edwards –
I stand to be corrected, but I can't actually envisage in real life beaming a longer note when accompanied by a shorter rest.
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|TimeSig|Signature:3/8
|Chord|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-4
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up
|RestChord|Dur:8th|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:8th|Pos2:-1
|Text|Text:" "|Font:PageSmallText|Pos:9|Wide:Y|Placement:AtNextNote
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
I say inexplicable because: in a split duration chord, there is ambiguity as to which voice is to be beamed. Nonetheless, NWC2 allows it. There is no ambiguity for a RestChord, yet NWC2 forbids it.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #19 –

Quote
I thought I'd add a final comment here that probably reveals the age of the "Jephtha" score I'm keying in.  Though crotchets (quarter notes) and smaller having down stems are fine, with minims (half notes) which have a down stem the stem is on the right rather than on the left, so the note looks like the letter "q" rather than the letter "p".  Amazing!


My greatgreatgrandfather's tunebook has examples.  He wrote his name in the flyleaf in 1843. 
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/424474932_d22c9ea789_b.jpg

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #20 –
Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to anything in the forum recently. I've been fighting a serious trojan infestation for the last 48 hours. Malwarebytes and I finally got the upper hand a short time ago, and I'm back online.

Thanks for your suggestions, Rick. I had been running grayscale scans because I thought they would be more legible. My bad. The b&w not only takes less space, it's easier to read.

So I've attached the scan of the Percy Goetschius textbook I was talking about back before Trojan.Agent stopped letting me talk. This is from a book called The Homophonic Forms of Musical Composition, a 1926 printing of an 1898 book. The parts to pay attention to are examples 2, 3, and 4 (the Mozart, the Schubert and the Beethoven). In the Mozart and the Beethoven, the middle-line stems are up; in the Schubert, they are down.

You may also notice that, at the beginning of the last measure of the Mozart example, a stem-up middle-line note follows a stem-down note at the end of the previous measure. I point this out before someone else does, as it violates this:

Quote from: William Ashworth
In the examples in his books, I can't find a single case where the stem of a middle-line note isn't the same as the stem of the note right before it.

OK - I was guilty of a bit of hyperbole. But it's true most of the time, and the note in question is stem-up. I suspect that, to the copyist, the important thing here was to give the two quarter notes in the last measure a similar stem direction. Matching the beamed eighth notes in the previous measure probably didn't seem as important. Music engraving is an art form - was even more so, in those days.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #21 –
G'day Bill,
glad you got the attachment thing going, but given:
Quote from: William Ashworth –
...but I still prefer the stem direction practice as exemplified by Apel and Goetschius for "clarity to the performer's eye."

Could you scan or quote the relevant paragraphs that relate to this statement?  I don't doubt you, but I'd like to see how they state it.  Especially given the disparity of the examples you have scanned from, I assume, the same text.

I might add that for me this is simply an academic exercise to satisfy my curiosity...

Thanks mate.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #22 –
Hi, Lawrie -

Actually, the quote you're curious about ("clarity to the performer's eye") comes from the Music Publishers' Association pamphlet on notation that you pointed us to a few posts ago. It's on p. 2, and they set it in italics to try to make sure it would be seen. I quoted it in my next post, italics and all - a few lines above the statement you're asking me about.

I agree that the old notation styles don't seem very clear to us today. I presume the problem was in the engraving techniques of the day. The flags stick out too far, the staff lines vary in thickness, the white notes don't show enough white, the phrase marks are too heavy and too flat.....in general, I prefer the look of modern scores. The bone I have been picking in this thread has solely to do with stem direction, and in that I think they had it right.

However, I will look around and see what I can find on notation practices in some of the old texts. Please don't expect anything very soon, though. My wife and I will be leaving tomorrow morning for Portland (Oregon) to be with the rest of the family while we support our 14-year-old grandson through open-heart surgery. We expect to be gone a week to ten days. I expect to have Web access during that time, but I won't have access to my music library - or any other music library, for that matter.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #23 –
G'day Bill,
mate, family comes first, always!  In any case, it is simply curiosity that prompts me to ask - there is certainly no urgency in it.

Sorry I misunderstood the source of your quote.  It was clearer when I re-read it.  If you do manage the time, I would be interested to see what "formal practice" was in vogue at the time...

My prayers are with your grandson.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #24 –
Thanks much, Lawrie. And I will look for written information on stem-direction practices 100 years ago, as I have time to do so.

I'll also let you know how the surgery comes out.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
I say inexplicable because: in a split duration chord, there is ambiguity as to which voice is to be beamed. Nonetheless, NWC2 allows it. There is no ambiguity for a RestChord, yet NWC2 forbids it.

The ambiguity of a split stem chord is visual only: all is revealed in its clip representation. NW will only beam the 'dur' note, never the 'dur2'. For equal length notes this seems to depend on the order of entry. For differing lengths the shorter is always the 'dur' note which can be beamed.

Sadly in restchords the rest is always the 'dur', never the 'dur2', and that's why it can't be beamed.

And I'm afraid I don't understand your example; it doesn't seem to have much to do with my hypothesis.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Peter Edwards –
The ambiguity of a split stem chord is visual only: all is revealed in its clip representation. NW will only beam the 'dur' note, never the 'dur2'. For equal length notes this seems to depend on the order of entry. For differing lengths the shorter is always the 'dur' note which can be beamed.

Sadly in restchords the rest is always the 'dur', never the 'dur2', and that's why it can't be beamed.
We agree about what NWC2 does. This does not explain to me why it does not beam a RestChord when there is only one stem to consider.

Quote from: Peter Edwards –
And I'm afraid I don't understand your example; it doesn't seem to have much to do with my hypothesis.
You are correct. My example was just one that occurs fairly often where it would be useful to be able to beam a RestChord.

The attachment fits your hypothesis. It is from Bach's Sinfonia No. 14
Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #27 –
Ah yes, but of course you wouldn't use a restchord in this situation since both voices are beamed, so layering would be necessary. I was thinking more of the case where the longer notes were beamed but the shorter ones were not. Possible but unlikely. Unless someone knows differently.

I think the programmatic logic of why you can't beam a restchord is clear, but can't see why both parts of a split-stem chord or the note part of a restchord can't. e.g. why can't this clip be processed correctly?

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Chord|Dur:16th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First|Dur2:8th|Pos2:3|Opts:Beam=First
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam
|RestChord|Dur:16th|Opts:Stem=Down,ArticulationsOnStem|Dur2:8th|Pos2:3|Opts:Beam=End
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

The quavers remain resolutely unbeamed :-(

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #28 –
While I do concur, from what has been said in other threads I gather that this kind of difficulty is one of the things that prompted the layering feature to be created.

As layering was available before I'd even heard of NWC perhaps one of the older members of the forum can enlighten us?
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
perhaps one of the older members of the forum can enlighten us?
IIRC, the problems were:
  • voices could not be independently beamed
  • voices could not cross
  • slurs and articulations could not be applied independently
Some discussion <here>.

That said, I've always thought that NWC would be improved if beaming was supported where there is no ambiguity.
In times past, you could not beam across a rest. You still cannot beam across a barline or clef, yet these are common in piano music.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #30 –
Hi Peter

I don't think that dual beaming for chords has ever been on the cards even where there is no rest involved at all.
A pity - this was one of the problems that layering was "the solution" for.  I suspect that bi-directional beaming may have been an upgrade if layering had not been invented.  Since layering, there appears to have been no development of "chord mechanisms" if I can call it that.

Your clip has a rest in the middle of the stem down notes beamed, but even without one, like you, I would have thought that both parts of a split stem chord could have been beamed - but I guess that we don't know what the programming problems were at the time. Those may very well have been overcome with the new structure of NWC2 but I suspect that there never will be more development of chords given the availability of layering.

 
Rich.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #31 –
I've been trying to remember the course of development of beaming vs. chords vs. layering. I know that beaming across rests, performance instructions and text came relatively late in the course of the development of 1.x - when beaming first came in, you couldn't beam across any of these things. I'm pretty sure that split-stem chords with two different durations came before those with a single duration. I remember RestChords coming in with carefully explained restrictions, which are still in place today. I also remember layering first being implemented "on an experimental basis" - and how vast was the horizon that suddenly seemed to open. (It was made permanent in the next release.) I don't recall any further single-staff development of any of the problems layering can solve with multiple staves, and I've always assumed the reason for that was that layering was so successful that no further development of these things seemed to be needed. On the other hand, layering has been steadily improved. User control over stem length and the horizontal positioning of notes and accidentals is part of that improvement. These could now be improved themselves - I think all of us would like to be able to move notes and accidentals both backwards and forwards horizontally, rather than just one direction each, for example - but we tend to forget how big a difference moving just one direction has made.

Beaming split-stem chords does have some ambiguity, and I'm not sure it's worth Eric's time to try to figure out how to deal with it as long as we have layering to work with. But I do agree that beaming should be available whenever there is no ambiguity. That definitely includes across barlines. There have been a number of times when beaming across a single barline was the only reason I needed more than one layer in a staff. That seems a big enough waste, and a simple enough programming problem, to make it worth trying to solve it.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #32 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
I don't recall any further single-staff development of any of the problems layering can solve with multiple staves
Beaming over rests came after layering. In the interim, you could simulate it by layering:
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam,Muted|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
with:
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Rest|Dur:8th|Visibility:Never
|Rest|Dur:8th
|Rest|Dur:8th|Visibility:Never
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Or just use the first clip with a text rest. Beaming over text has been possible for a long time (before layering, IIRC).

In the past, when stem lengths could not be adjusted, there would be some complications with allowing beaming across clefs but, I can see no reason why it should not be allowed now.

Beaming over barlines would need some non-trivial code to handle SysBreaks, but even if a SysBreak just broke the beams it would be an improvement over the current restriction.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #33 –
Hi all -

I have finally had a chance to get down to our local university's library and look up historic stem direction practices. The library had a number of handbooks of practical music notation from different eras (in three different call numbers - don't get this old librarian started on cataloguers!). Three of them seem particularly relevant to the discussion in this thread. Here's a quote from the earliest, Harold M. Johnson's How to write music manuscript (New York: Carl Fischer, 1946):

Rules: Single notes above the third line, stems down on left of notehead; single notes below the third line, stems up on right of notehead. Single notes on the third line, stems down if the stem of the next note is down, up if the stem of the next note is up, except when slurred to notes preceding, in which case the stem takes the direction of the preceding stem."
- p. 8 (italics in original)

By the early 1960s, when I was an undergraduate, things were beginning to change. Here's a quote from Gardner Read's Music Notation: a manual of modern practice (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1964):

When the note is centered on the staff (on the third line), the stem may go in either direction, although it is the more common practice to draw it down....
- p. 58 (italics again in original)

And ten years later, when Clinton Roemer wrote The Art of Music Copying (Sherman Oaks, CA: Roerick Music, 1973), the change was essentially complete. Roemer states categorically that stems on the middle line should always be drawn down (although "some notators" felt they could go either way, this practice was to be "strongly discouraged").

So that, in a nutshell, is that. By always drawing stems down, NWC is following standard practice - but it has only been standard practice for about 35 years.

All right. Point made. I guess I won't try to ride this dead horse any further. But I still prefer the older practice, and will continue to follow it in my own scores - and many thanks, Eric, for making the program flexible enough to let an old codger like me keep hanging on to the past.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #34 –
G'day Bill,
thanks for taking the time to give us an update.  History is always interesting...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
History is always interesting...
True. but not always historic  :)
Thanks Bill, for your research.

It seems to me that the trend over the last 25 years is to put less music on a page. This is a problem for the solo perfomer as there is no one else to cover for the loss of continuity that occurs as pages are turned.

If the music is sufficiently 'spread out", rules can be simplified.

My 2¢
Registered user since 1996
 

Re: Default stem directions

Reply #36 –
   This has been a fascinating ride, and the conclusion is that NWC makes middle line single note stems down by default 'cos these days that's the rule.  And I accept that an option to change the default is not really appropriate, especially since you can change individual occurrences manually if that's what you want.

   Thanks, all of you.

   MusicJohn, 24/Apr/09