Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Incorrect timing with dotted notes (Read 4668 times) previous topic - next topic

Incorrect timing with dotted notes

So far I have been very unimpressed with this product. Every time I try to do something a little different, either it cannot be done or you have to do something strange to accomodate the product. All I am trying to do is enter a song so I can change the key and print out the song in the new key. When I enter the notes exactly as witten, they do not play correctly.
I have a measure that starts with a chord of two notes. The top note is a dotted quarter(stem up) and the lower is just a quarter(stem down). This is followed by an quarter note(stem down) and then an eigthth note (stem up). This idiotic program thinks that this is 2 and a half beats worth of music instead of two. What do I have to do to get this to play correctly?

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #1 –
Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Rich, I hate to tell you this but what you have described IS two and a half beats.  The dotted note with a quarter note is one beat, the next quarter note is one beat and the eighth note is a half beat.  As far as I can figure it, one plus one plus one/half equals two and a half.  If you want this combo to play in two beats you are gonna have to put an eighth rest on one of those quarter notes.

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #3 –
No it is NOT two and a half beats. The top two notes are a dotted quarter and an eighth = two beats. The bottom two notes are both quarter notes = two beats. This is commonly done in music, where the top note is held and the bottom note moves - hence they are notes of different value,  but this stinking program has a difficult time doing even the simplest thing.

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #4 –
Be sure to check out the lyaer sample. as described above by Noteworthy Online.

I have occasion to use such "moving note" notation all the time, in the context of SATB choral music. I haven't had a problem when the notes are entered correctly. It is also possible to put "moving notes" as chords on a single staff, without layering.

I vaguely recall, however, that if I first incorrectly enter the moving chord notes (sloppy transcription on my part), it is better to erase and re-enter the offending notes, rather than editing them in place. Probably that's due to my own fumbling.

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #5 –
Hank, I'm afraid your analysis is not correct - Rich has a valid point.
Rich, it is not a stinking program.

NWC does not support multiple parts on one stave (personally I think it could try harder) but it does provide a mechanism called Staff Layering which achieves pretty much the same results, so I suggest you examine the proffered solution in more detail.

Nevertheless there are unresolved drawbacks, in particular different stem/flag lengths and accidental incompatibilties in the layered staves which do need to be addressed, but in general it is usually possible to work round these with enough thought.

In other words, the program can usually create what you want, and with sufficient pushing we might even get it to do it without too much cerebral effort too!

So instead of flaming, try to be constructive. Legitimate shortcomings can be resolved.

Peter

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #6 –
Well, perhaps I misunderstood what he was saying, but his description was a chord with a quarter note and a dotted quarter note which is one beat because the quarter note overrides the dotted quarter note for timing, then a quarter note which is one beat then an eighth note which is 1/2 beat as long as you are in 4/4 time.  Is that not correct?  (Try not to bruise me too bad, I'm not a musician after all)
 

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #7 –
Look at the stem directions. The dotted quarter and eighth are up and total a half. The two quarter notes are down and total a half. The chord itself should be rendered with two stems - which is what NWC does in this instance.

NWC then counts the bar length using the shorter of the notes in the chord and indeed is clever enough to put the stem of the next note in the right direction to match. Unfortunately it then fails to see that the other part is now the shorter one. The only way round this (using only one stave) is to split the second note into two tied notes so that the two parts are matched. With Hank's problem this would result in a dotted quarter and quarter chord;  an eighth (tied); an eighth and eighth chord.

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #8 –
Layering is a breeze, once you're used to it. Even combining staves, once you've figured out what to hide, note stem direction, muting, colouring, slur direction, note widths, rest placement, the more you use it the easier it gets and the faster you get. I once was a doubter, but now am a convert and booster. NWC rules. Now if I can just figure out what all those initials and punctuation faces are about. (:|)

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #9 –
Ok, so what is being said is that the notes with the stems up will be one instrument and the notes with stems down will be another, right? (or at least two of the same instrument playing different parts).  Welp, that makes more sense.  It was the way the original problem was stated that confused me, you can put the stem directions either way you want on single notes on the same instrument and it makes no difference to the playback.

Ouch, ouch, ok, I surrender, don't hit me again!!
<G>

Re: Incorrect timing with dotted notes

Reply #10 –
I agree with Peter in reply 5. The layering feature is the only way to do any but the very simplest part-writing in Noteworthy, which is a bit inconvenient sometimes, but it does work very well. Consider that the only other music notation/playback program (that I know about) that is even close to NWC in cost - abc - doesn't do counterpoint at all, not even on two staves.

The combination of price and flexibility makes NWC an excellent value - it's easier to use and does nearly as much as programs costing six or seven times more.