Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Markers (Read 6988 times) previous topic - next topic

Markers

Well, having the possibility of using markers to adjust articulations, slurs and triplets is very good.
But to be forced to use markers each time you have a staccato with a slur is a p.i.t.a.!
Not to say if you then, for some reason, decide to swap the stem direction of a block of notes... All the markers must be adjusted by hand!
Terrible.
Or am I missing something?

Re: Markers

Reply #1 –
I don't think you're missing anything. There was a discussion a while back regarding whether articulations should be inside slurs or outside them, and the "outsiders" won. My own preference, backed up by the Music Publishers' Associations guidelines, is to have them inside. I am grateful for the ability to move slurs - although I agree that having to move them every time is a PITA.

Re: Markers

Reply #2 –
Terrible. PITA
So far, I disagree.

Without examples, these sentiments are hard to understand.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Markers

Reply #3 –
Maybe what isn't clear to you, Rick, is that Flurmy and I are talking about articulations at the end points of slurs. Many of us (including the Music Publishers' Association guidelines) think the slurs should begin and end outside the articulations. NWC puts the beginning and ending points inside the articulations. Markers give us the ability to move the end points of the slurs, but it has to be done individually for every one. That's the PITA.
Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.75,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Text|Text:"wrong"|Font:PageSmallText|Pos:-7
|Note|Dur:4th,Staccato,Slur|Pos:3
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:4
|Marker|Pos:7
|Text|Text:"correct"|Font:PageSmallText|Pos:-7
|Note|Dur:4th,Staccato,Slur|Pos:3
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:4
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Re: Markers

Reply #4 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
Maybe what isn't clear to you, Rick, is that Flurmy and I are talking about articulations at the end points of slurs.
I don't read that as what Flurmy writes. In any case, your example might be an argument for changing slur defaults, but it has little to do with the topic which is Markers.
I would not use such strong language as "wrong" and "correct" for your example.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Markers

Reply #5 –
The topic isn't markers in general. It's the need for all the markers in these cases to be adjusted by hand. And because this need is inherent in the way markers operate, you are correct that it is really another plea for changing the default. Which is why I mentioned the earlier discussion in my original reply (he explains patiently).

As for "wrong" and "correct" - again, I point to the Music Publishers' Association guidelines ("Standard Music Notation Practice," 1993), which states (p. 10), "Slurs over or under the notes should contain any modifying marks such as dots, accents, etc." and shows an example similar to mine.

(And yes, in case you are wondering, I do keep a copy of the MPA guidelines always at hand, as a pdf on my desktop. But it's also on line, at several different places. Here's one: http://icking-music-archive.org/lists/sottisier/notation.pdf)

Re: Markers

Reply #6 –
I looked at page 10 of the MPA guidelines. I was not favorably impressed. Off topic to explain.
I still await an example of what makes Markers "terrible."
Registered user since 1996

Re: Markers

Reply #7 –
Which part of "the topic isn't markers in general" don't you understand?

Re: Markers

Reply #9 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
NWC puts the beginning and ending points inside the articulations.

Worse than that: NWC puts the beginning and ending points ON the articulations!
And it's not "backward compatible". Old scores need to be filled with markers to be like they used to be.

Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.75,Single)
|Note|Dur:8th,Staccato,Slur|Pos:-1|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th,Staccato|Pos:-3|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Call it "wrong" or "correct" as you prefer.
I call it a great P.I.T.A.

Re: Markers

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Flurmy –
NWC puts the beginning and ending points ON the articulations!
That should be fixed. Outside of articulations would seem to me to be the best default.

I am not seeing what this has to do with Markers or why anyone would describe them as "terrible."
Registered user since 1996

Re: Markers

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Flurmy –
And it's not "backward compatible". Old scores need to be filled with markers to be like they used to be.
Are you saying that 2.51 (and earlier) used to display correctly in these conditions? And that 2.75 "broke" things (which require the marker to "fix")? I can't imagine that that was intended, but I will have to go back and re-read the threads on "slur redesign".
Quote from: Rick G. –
I am not seeing what this has to do with Markers or why anyone would describe them as "terrible."
I don't think Flurmy is saying that markers are terrible; in fact, in his opening message, he says that having them is "very good". What I think he sees as "terrible" is that they need to be used to fix something that was displaying correctly before. (Unless I am missing something.)

Mike

Re: Markers

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Mike Shawaluk –
Are you saying that 2.51 (and earlier) used to display correcting in these conditions?
NWC 2.51a display attached.

Quote from: Mike Shawaluk –
.I don't think Flurmy is saying that markers are terrible; in fact, in his opening message, he says that having them is "very good".
Not quite. Flurmy writes that the possiblity of using markers [] is very good. He titles the topic: Markers and ends with "terrible."

A discussion of slur defaults ensues, with some agreement that their start/end points have taken a turn for the worse ...
Registered user since 1996

Re: Markers

Reply #13 –
Quote
to be forced to use markers each time
... IS terrible.

Re: Markers

Reply #14 –
In our part of the world we might say "turble".
Since 1998
 

Re: Markers

Reply #16 –
Thanks!  8)