Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Topic: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview (Read 6607 times) previous topic - next topic

Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

2006-09-25 03:31 pm

The first slur is not correct in File->Print Preview

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:b0|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:0
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #1 – 2006-09-25 10:34 pm

G'day Rick,
it sure ain't... it don't print right either - as you'd expect from the preview.

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #2 – 2006-09-26 12:57 am

Do we always slur notes of the same pitch? Just sayin'!

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #3 – 2006-09-26 01:47 am

'tis not that unusual in brass parts, at least I've seen it a bit - indicates a softer articulation on successive notes, makes them more connected. You could use a legato style or a tenuto, but to me the slur is even more so.

E.G. with a legato or tenuto, you would still tongue the note, but with a 'du', 'de' or 'da' type syllable rather than a 'tu', 'te' or 'ta', whereas with a slur I'd be more inclined to simply 'lip it' if it's a different note, or 'la' it if it's the same note.

Of course, every player is different and I'm really no authority. This is just what I do, right or wrong

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #4 – 2006-09-26 04:26 am

Quote from: fitzclan – 2006-09-26 12:57 am

Do we always slur notes of the same pitch? Just sayin'!

Code: [Select · Download]

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-1
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #5 – 2006-09-26 03:34 pm

Hmmmmm!!!!! OK, you win. What's up with that?

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #6 – 2006-09-26 04:04 pm

In the Notation Properties Dialogue Box under Notes > Extra Note Spacing, if you make the value 1, you get this:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-1
|Bar
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-1
|Bar
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1|Opts:XNoteSpace=1|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-1
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Which looks about right (but not quite!), to me. It looks as though the notes in a subsequent staff would not line up properly as there are only two quarter notes showing while there are actually three quarter beats of time in the example. But that's another problem. It seems that making the note invisible changes the distance between notes making the arc higher as the notes are squeezed together. I can see how this would present a problem, especially when its effect is not visible until print preview. I would hate to have to go back through a whole score fixing this little aberation. On the other hand, I am having a tough time understanding when this usage comes into play, (except when trying to do work-arounds for other annoyances like getting the triplet bracket to go the right way). I would be interested in seeing an example where this hidden slurred note is useful or how you came upon such a thing. Were you actually using it or was it happenstance?

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #7 – 2006-09-26 06:21 pm

Do we always slur notes of the same pitch?

Beethoven did in the Coriolan Overture.

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #8 – 2006-09-26 09:03 pm

Quote from: fitzclan – 2006-09-26 04:04 pm

Were you actually using it or was it happenstance?

The latter.

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #9 – 2006-09-27 01:23 am

Quote

It looks as though the notes in a subsequent staff would not line up properly as there are only two quarter notes showing while there are actually three quarter beats of time in the example.

You'll find that NWC2 (and I think NWC) will align bars with hidden notes in one staff okay with bars that don't have hidden notes in another staff.

Quote

It seems that making the note invisible changes the distance between notes making the arc higher as the notes are squeezed together. I can see how this would present a problem, especially when its effect is not visible until print preview.

I agree. This is a major bug. It doesn't happen in version 1. Mind you, the slurs in Version 1 are pretty basic compared to version 2.

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #10 – 2006-09-27 01:54 am

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #11 – 2006-09-27 03:45 pm

When the bar lines aren't aligned, you immediately know you're missing notes in one part, and you can quickly see where that is. Very useful.

Sometimes you need to use layered staffs to create some sort of effect, perhaps when working with chords with differing note values to be tied or slurred (I haven't thought this one through - no time to fiddle around since I have to leave for work in a couple of minutes). The note you hide is needed to make the thing work, but not needed or wanted on the printed part.

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #12 – 2006-09-27 09:56 pm

Quote from: fitzclan – 2006-09-27 01:54 am

As far as aligning notes in staves with invisible notes in one staff and not in the other, ... the notes do not align properly. I can't imagine a use for this. It would only confuse the musician reading it.

Don't know about notes but rests are often treated this way. This would be a fairly standard way to present duples:

Code: [Select · Download]

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|TimeSig|Signature:6/8
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-1|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:4th,Dotted|Pos:1
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Code: [Select · Download]

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Bass
|TimeSig|Signature:6/8
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Text|Text:"2 "|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:-10|Justify:Center|Placement:BestFitForward
|Rest|Dur:16th|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Rest|Dur:16th|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Text|Text:"2   "|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:-10|Justify:Center|Placement:BestFitForward
|Rest|Dur:16th|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Rest|Dur:16th|Visibility:Never
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Re: Bug: beta 2.05 Slur Print Preview

Reply #13 – 2006-09-27 10:27 pm

In your example, the notes are not supposed to line up. What you are showing is correct. There are 6 eighth beats in both measures, (as far as printing is concerned). The need for the hidden rests as well as the numerical text entry arises from a shortcoming in the notation program. As far as NWC is concerned, the number of beats per measure is correct when actually it is not, if you count duplets as they are supposed to be counted as well as the hidden rests. As I said, unless you are doing a work-aound for something that the program is incapable of doing, there would be no real use for the original example. At least not that I can see. You can't show two quarter beats in the top staff and three in the lower. It doesn't compute. I fail to see the reason that there should have to be a work-around for duplets and other n-tuplets anyhow. I'm not real big on math!