polymetric music?

Topic: polymetric music? (Read 11057 times) previous topic - next topic

polymetric music?

2014-07-08 04:20 pm

Hello-
I rarely visit but I've attached a file with each instrument using different time signatures. In edit mode (which is what I call it the view where you add/change notes etc...) the music looks fine however in view or print it's a mess and unperformable.
I'm wondering if there is a work around?
Thanks
Jay

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #1 – 2014-07-08 09:48 pm

I think what you need to do is decide where the system breaks happen, (or force them where you want them) and add a bar line at those points in all staves. That bar line can be made invisible (Visibility: Never) and excluded from bar count.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #2 – 2014-07-08 11:07 pm

No that doesn't do anything-good. as you can see from this example and compare it to the previous one there's no way it could be performed. And in another notation program where I put the system breaks is the same and it lines up in beat counts on both.
Anyone else?
Thanks for trying.
Jay

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #3 – 2014-07-08 11:33 pm

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #4 – 2014-07-08 11:43 pm

As David said, you will have to pad the score so each measure contains the same number of "beatlets". In this movement of a Corelli sonata, a C time signature is played against a 12/8. Note the hidden rests in the 4/4 measure and what goes on in the hidden staves to make it work http://nwc-scriptorium.org/db/classical/c/corop5_5-5.nwc.

Edited: Note this User tip.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #5 – 2014-07-09 05:06 am

Quote from: David Palmquist – 2014-07-08 11:33 pm

For printing a score (all parts on a page) you can pad the Marimba part with hidden rests,

Quote from: Warren Porter – 2014-07-08 11:43 pm

As David said, you will have to pad the score so each measure contains the same number of "beatlets".

Nonsense. Frybyte wants polymeter, not polyrhythm. I made the same mistake. Took an hour or so of trying to rewrite the song as polyrhythm for me to realize this.

Quote from: Frybyte – 2014-07-08 04:20 pm

the music looks fine

The file attached to the main topic is rather short of "looking fine." Sustain Pedals that preserve width, 'Increase spacing for longer notes', and a dearth of Spacers are not signs that you care much about how the song appears. At least you don't have staff metrics set to 26pt, although 19 rather than 18 is a curious choice.

As you say, you don't post here often, but attaching a song using fonts that most of us do not have is not friendly.

Quote from: fathafluff – 2014-07-08 09:48 pm

I think what you need to do is decide where the system breaks happen, (or force them where you want them) and add a bar line at those points in all staves.

Sounds good, but the song attached is so bizarre that that is not possible. NWC can handle reasonable polymeters, but this goes way beyond reasonable. I doubt that any notation software can make sense of it.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #6 – 2014-07-09 04:00 pm

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-09 05:06 am

NWC can handle reasonable polymeters, but this goes way beyond reasonable. I doubt that any notation software can make sense of it.

Without seeing what the OP is actually trying to do it's hard to be usre, but LilyPond can handle some quite bizarre polymeter/polyrhythm effects, with a little effort.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #7 – 2014-07-09 05:17 pm

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-09 05:06 am

NWC can handle reasonable polymeters, but this goes way beyond reasonable.

I take this back. NWC does not support mismatched barlines well enough to be useful for polymeter. Polyrhythm is tedious, but can usually be made to work.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #8 – 2014-07-09 05:30 pm

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-09 05:17 pm

I take this back. NWC does not support mismatched barlines well enough to be useful for polymeter. Polyrhythm is tedious, but can usually be made to work.

Nonsense, Rick. I've used it to notate polymetric music with changing meters that were not a whole lot less complex than the ones in the OP's example. I took second place in an international recorder quartet contest with such a piece, notated in NWC, and no one questioned the appearance of my score. You just have to insert a lot of hidden barlines and hidden key signatures and hidden rests. Yes, it takes some effort, but it's definitely possible.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #9 – 2014-07-09 05:54 pm

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2014-07-09 05:30 pm

I've used it to notate polymetric music with changing meters that were not a whole lot less complex than the ones in the OP's example.

Good for you. Perhaps you would share an example. NWC will not allow a beam across a barline. I suppose that if you find it acceptable to have notes that clearly should be beamed to be unbeamed, you might be able to make things work. Attached is a simple polymeter. As of NWC 2.51a, system breaks cannot be added to it that will produce an acceptable Print Preview.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #10 – 2014-07-09 10:48 pm

When I have trouble with display/print (nothing complex like the OP described), I keep displaying the print preview. On the one piece I had problems with, neither the original nor the view looked right, but it printed correctly. Depends, I guess, where your priorities are.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #11 – 2014-07-09 11:01 pm

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-09 05:06 am

Nonsense. Frybyte wants polymeter, not polyrhythm. I made the same mistake. Took an hour or so of trying to rewrite the song as polyrhythm for me to realize this.
The file attached to the main topic is rather short of "looking fine." Sustain Pedals that preserve width, 'Increase spacing for longer notes', and a dearth of Spacers are not signs that you care much about how the song appears. At least you don't have staff metrics set to 26pt, although 19 rather than 18 is a curious choice.

As you say, you don't post here often, but attaching a song using fonts that most of us do not have is not friendly.
Sounds good, but the song attached is so bizarre that that is not possible. NWC can handle reasonable polymeters, but this goes way beyond reasonable. I doubt that any notation software can make sense of it.

I discovered that by selecting the default piano template, you automatically get staff metrics of 26.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #12 – 2014-07-10 03:22 am

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-09 05:54 pm

NWC will not allow a beam across a barline. I suppose that if you find it acceptable to have notes that clearly should be beamed to be unbeamed, you might be able to make things work.

You're kidding, right? Beams across barlines are among the first thing most of us learn to use layers for. I won't insult you by showing you how - surely you know.

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-09 05:54 pm

Attached is a simple polymeter. As of NWC 2.51a, system breaks cannot be added to it that will produce an acceptable Print Preview.

Interesting. The "piece" can easily be made to look nice without the forced system break. With it, the first several methods I tried failed. Seems to be a bug in the way the forced sysbreak works. The first example below (Topic 8818 rg01a.nwc) looks just fine with the break removed; with the break present, it goes all to hell.

However, the second example (Topic 8818 rg01b) works - as long as you add the extra sysbreak after the final bar. Without it, the bars in the second system don't quite line up.

I've also attached a real-world example - the previously mentioned piece that took 2nd place in the American Recorder Society's international competition in 2007. If there are problems with the way it lies on the page, I'm not aware of them; certainly the judges didn't care.

Over to you....

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #13 – 2014-07-10 09:14 am

Googling "polymetric notation" results in a lot of hits including some discussions of various notation programs.

If I understand it, polyrhythm is essentially two rhythms playing at the same time - so for instance, one part plays three beats during the same measure in which another part is playing 2 or 4. Polymeter, however, is where the stress is placed differently between the parts, a simple example being where you have two parts, one in common time and the other in three-quarter time. The strong beats in the two parts only coincide every so often. (I'm not trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs, I just want to make sure we're all discussing the same thing.)

An issue in ensemble writing is for each musician to be able to find her place in the music if you're rehearsing from a point that is not the beginning. So for instance, if you want everyone to play the chord on the second beat of bar 38, it's a lot easier if everyone can find the same bar 38. And it's nice for the conductor to be able to look at a measure and see what everyone is supposed to play in that bar. If the parts all have different time signatures, this becomes challenging to read, not only because it will look messy, but because it will be very complicated.

Rather than write separate time signatures on each line, and have to deal with misaligned bars and beaming problems, isn't it much simpler to write one time signature for all the parts, and notate the different meters with accents, as suggested at http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/10488/polymeter-vs-polyrhythm?

That's not to say you can't change meters within the piece, but where you change the meter for one, you'd do it for all.

And of course, things would be a lot simpler if the number of beats notated in a given bar equalled the number of beats called for by the time signature. A 9/8 bar does not have 3 quarter notes and a dotted quarter rest. The third and fourth bars of the second part aren't really following the rhythm of a 4/4 bar - the syncopation throws it off. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I am suggesting that part doesn't need to be written in 4/4.

As I listened to the first example, I liked it, but the highlighted playback made me thing it is far too complex. All that crazy notation will just confuddle musicians unless they love notation theory. Can't most of the three parts simply be written with common time signatures with polymeters achieved with accents and perhaps dynamics?

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #14 – 2014-07-10 09:59 am

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2014-07-10 03:22 am

You're kidding, right? Beams across barlines are among the first thing most of us learn to use layers for.

Not at all. NWC will not allow a beam across a barline. Layers can be used to make a beam look like it crossed a barline. Not the same at all.

When barlines do not match, NoteWorthy does not guarantee printing.

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2014-07-10 03:22 am

the second example (Topic 8818 rg01b) works - as long as you add the extra sysbreak after the final bar.

And as you fill the empty measures with music, eventually you will need to beam across one of those bars. This is especially true when you mix simple and compound meter (4/4 and 9/8, for example).

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2014-07-10 03:22 am

I've also attached a real-world example

You are kidding, right? The first 32 bars are in 4/4. They print just fine. Then you change to 9/8 and continue to m54 where you change to 6/8 on all but one staff. By m56 everything is back to 9/8. 2 measures of 3/4 at 94, then everything is 6/8 at m96. Finally, at m104 I see something that looks like polymeter. 9/8 against 6/8 Depending on the printer, Print Preview fails after m104 just like I would expect it to fail. (one example attached) You have hidden barlines added here and there which probably fixed the problem for your printer. Given how simple 9/8 against 6/8 is, I might be able to fix it for most printers, but the example Frybyte gives is an order of magnitude more complex.

Frybyte: I've now spent many hours working with your song. ~~IMO, it will not print properly using NoteWorthy.~~
Edit: added strikethrough. I've spent a few more hours...

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #15 – 2014-07-10 01:02 pm

Well, here is my attempt at a print for Jay's music. I think it is reasonable as a printed document - certainly much better than the original when print previewed.

This has been set for A4 and since others would not have the same settings as me, I include an A4 pdf print to show how I see it.
This has taken quite a bit of work - but ever up for a challenge. What I have found is that you cannot use "Force system break" from within bar properties, neither can you use "Boundary - force new system or start new page". If you do, it completely throws all that you have done. You have to make any changes with invisible bars, spacers etc such that you arrive at an end of system that Noteworthy is happy with and you are happy with - then leave it there. Do not put a break even at the place that Noteworthy has decided is the end of system - or it will throw everything out.

There are two places where Jay had a beam, but because the middle of the beamed series is at the end of a system, I have not been able to complete the beam. These are Page 1, Marimba, third system, last note (which should be beamed with the next two notes) and Page 4 second system, last four notes of guitar should be beamed with the next two notes).

The Marimba part ends mid score and I was not sure how to treat that and so I just have it finishing where it finished rather than continuing to the end of that system. Originally, I continued the bar line to the end of the system.

No doubt there are some boo-boos and errors here - but hey! It works of a fashion (I think).

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #16 – 2014-07-10 03:55 pm

The first page of the post above, rendered in LilyPond. Took about 40 minutes, including entering all the notes by hand (after I'd done this I realised I could have done this with my exporter, but didn't think of it to start with).

Only difficulty was getting lined up bars to break the lines: LilyPond won't break in the middle of a bar, so there are some dummy bar lines. I definitely _won't_ break in the middle of a note!

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #17 – 2014-07-10 04:12 pm

Works for me, Rich. Just doesn't work for perfectionists. :-)

Rick, two comments:

(1) Layers are ALWAYS used to make the music LOOK like it's supposed to. For purposes of printing - which is the main purpose of NWC - a layered beam across a barline is exactly equivalent to a true beam across a barline. It also sounds fine in playback. What is your problem with that?

(2) Yes, printers differ, so a fix for one printer isn't going to be a fix for all printers. This is always the case, and one of the things we have to keep explaining over and over to newbies. It's also why I (almost) always print to pdf and then print from the pdf - it's the only way to guarantee consistency. Yeah, you'd probably have to put the hidden barlines in Papillon in different places. But the point is that they always can be made to work. Not always perfectly. But always.

Look. We're dealing with an imperfect product here. We're always going to be dealing with an imperfect product. (Apologies to Eric, but it's true. No piece of software is ever perfect. No human creation ever is.) That's why we design the many workarounds that all of us use. Your workarounds are legendary for their excellent quality. I understand why you would prefer native versions over any of them. All of us would. What I don't understand is why you feel you have to trash the workarounds in the meantime. The score of Papillon passed muster with a panel of international judges. Isn't that adequate?

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #18 – 2014-07-10 04:37 pm

   Though, as a confirmed Handel/Mozart/Bach etc Choral man, this music leaves me cold, I've been mildly impressed by the effort put into the problem by everyone, especially by Richard, and slightly surprised by the relative absence of further comment from Frybyte/Jay.

   And I'm a bit curious about the repeated section from top staff Bar 11 to Bar 22 (which has the D.C. al Fine in it; interesting that, because the D.C. is only in the top Staff!). I don't know what is supposed to happen here, but what actually happens is that the D.C. is performed but the "repeat" is ignored ... so why's it there?

   It's not April 1st, is it?

   MusicJohn, 10/Jul/14

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #19 – 2014-07-10 07:24 pm

Thanks John.

Spotted a 'wrongun' on the last few measures and so re-did them.

Also, added a few blank measures at the end because a stretched final measure looked bad. IMO three blank measures looked better.
Too much work to try and rejig earlier measures so that the last system is justified over several measures. (I think I have had enough of this now !)

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #20 – 2014-07-10 08:19 pm

Quote from: MusicJohn – 2014-07-10 04:37 pm

It's not April 1st, is it?

It might be. As the song says: Unsure

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #21 – 2014-07-14 12:09 pm

Quote from: Frybyte – 2014-07-08 04:20 pm

in view or print it's a mess and unperformable.

I'm wondering if there is a work around?

Indeed there is if you are willing give up few things. Beams may be broken, Whole measure rests won't center, some triplets may need to be reworked. Most multimeasure rests won't work

The workaround is to make sure that barlines match on each visible staff. Similar to Rich's example but more obsessive. 83 barlines added, 23 notes/chords changed to RestChords, 14 rests hidden with text taking their place.

Preserving the note pitches is non-trivial. One could force accidentals and then audit them, but working on complex pieces with accidents forced will surely cause blindness or headaches.

Quote from: PhilHolmes – 2014-07-10 03:55 pm

Only difficulty was getting lined up bars to break the lines: LilyPond won't break in the middle of a bar, so there are some dummy bar lines. I definitely _won't_ break in the middle of a note!

How easy is it for LP to preserve the accidental state across those hidden barlines? The issue doesn't arise in Unsure until m17, so I can't tell from the pdf. I can see that the accidental problem will be different from NWC's since all accidentals are specified.

Re: polymetric music?

Reply #22 – 2014-07-14 03:58 pm

Quote from: Rick G. – 2014-07-14 12:09 pm

How easy is it for LP to preserve the accidental state across those hidden barlines? The issue doesn't arise in Unsure until m17, so I can't tell from the pdf. I can see that the accidental problem will be different from NWC's since all accidentals are specified.

There's no need to: Lily can move the timing translator from the Score to each individual stave, so each keeps its own time and there is nothing hidden in the output.