Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song (Read 11137 times) previous topic - next topic

Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Hi,

I would like to reopen a question that I placed 2 years ago in the NWC forum :

Suppose you have a song with multiple staffs, some of these staffs containing tacets. When printing the score, the empty staffs are printed anyway.

Is there any chance to avoid printing parts (!) of a staff, i.e. the printout would contain e.g. an area with two staffs, switching to an area with only one staff and even back to two staffs ?

Thanks for your suggestions !

Later on in the discussion a solution was proposed :

If a staff in a particular system only contains elements not to be printed, why should the staff itself be printed ? If the user wishes so, then this could be realised e.g. by a parameter "Avoid printing empty staffs".

Is there any chance to include this feature in NWC 2 ?

Regards

Thomas

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #1 –
Probably best way is to give a "Not important" flag with a unique highlight colour. Because there are some things that should always print, even given tacets - for instance, both staves of a piano part, but letting things be flagged as not mportant should solve this.

But I'm not the programmer.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #2 –
looking at it from another angle, perhaps.
In the same way that we transitioned from muted staves to muted notes, could we transition hidden staves to hidden objects?  Hey! we already have hidden objects :-D.  I think its been mentioned before that if there is a whole line of hidden objects, NWC should take that as a signal to hide that staff for that system.  I wouldn't mind if NWC did this on a per bar basis and just left it as the user's responsibility to see to it that he didn't have staffs appearing in the middle of the system if he didn't want them to...
Sincerely,
Francis Beaumier
Green Bay, WI

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #3 –
Not so modest, please. Quite a straightforward option would be 'where a staff consists of hidden material only, do not print it'.
On a per line basis only, if you see what I mean.
To me, that seems quite easy to implement.

And it saves recurring entries in the Forum.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #4 –
Not so straightforward. The top staff (or one of its layers) usually has the top margin for the system break.  If it is empty, NWC will still have to account for its Vertical Size: Upper. Ditto for the bottom staff and Vertical Size: Lower

  • Then there is the problem of a Grand System... (and some of those have 3-4 visible staves)
  • Organists probably won't want their Pedal Staff going away just because it is empty.
  • Then there's the score where 2 instruments are doing a "back and forth" every 2 measures, but because its a score, you're only getting 2 measures on a page...
I think a more elaborate approach would be needed, probably bar by bar control.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #5 –
Hang on! I did not say
'where a staff consists of empty material only, do not print it'.
but
'where a staff consists of hidden material only, do not print it' !
And it there should still be a general option, just like Layering: globally switch it on, or off.
I maintain that it's a straightforward option. Those who do not want it, do nothing - and nothing changes. Those who DO want it, mark the contents of a staff as hidden, where they do not want it in print, and it goes away (once the main switch is set).
Simplicité lui-même, non?

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #6 –
Two details:

The idea of "no visible items" would seem to work only if you know where the system breaks will occur.  But this will be, I think, an iterative process.  Consider that the parts of the given staff in which any are empty.  If a system breaks occurs where there are one or more "empty" measures and one or more non-"empty" measures between successive breaks, then the "empty" measures must show rests.  But to leave these whole-bar rests visible, and others non-visible requires that you display the score with all whole-bar rests visible, then go and "whiten them out".  But you can't do this in one pass, as the presence of a visible whole-bar rest may effect the size of a measure, and hence the point at which a break occurs.  At the least you need a new visibility property, sort of "hide if nothing else in this section between system breaks is truly visible, but show otherwise".

The second consideration has to do with layering.  Frequently one or more of the layered staves will contain long sequences of rests.  If these are all made invisible then parts of these sections will be left out of the printing process.  But they must not be left out of the layering process or subsequent staves will become the "next staff" for layering purposes.  Again, you will need still another flavor of visibility, since these rests must never be visible, but must only cause non-printing when all of the layered staves in the group should be left out of the score.  It hurts my head to try and figure out the rules for THAT.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #7 –
I still fail to see the problem. The idea is this. Say there are bars 20 up to 50 of a staff that you could do without. Mark them as 'suppressable'. (It could be done with a property of the bar, so not every symbol has to carry the label.)
Now, say bars 20, 21 and 22 occur on a staff with material that is going to be printed. No change there. Next, Noteworthy figures out 'OK, so what is going to be printed below this one?' (it already does that!) The whole layout of the staff has to be inspected to decide how many bars are going to fit in this staff. In the process, Noteworthy could just as easily decide 'well, there is nothing to print here, because every bar has been labeled as suppressable, and Global Suppress is on, so why would I bother?' This goes on for a number of bars, until you hit bar 47 (say) which is going to be printed - because there is material on the right that has to appear in print. Again, Noteworthy has to decide what to print for this bar, and there is no reason to suppress, this time. Old hat.

Even with layering, it should be a breeze. Why? Because the figuring-out part is already part and parcel of Noteworthy. The only thing it needs is the 'why bother?' addition. Or so I am firmly inclined to believe.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #8 –
IT'd be a lot easier if it was a suppressable flag than just hidden: Otherwise you'd spend a lot of time in cleanup trying to get things hidden just to the end of a line, and keeping in the rests before that.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #9 –
Sorry, should've read everything before replying.

I'd be inclined to let usesrs mark things as suppressable, and if they suppress only part of a layered staff or part of a grand staff, well, that's their fault. Shouldn't have marked it as suppressable if it's not.  Frankly, any further refinements to this are bonuses as long as it's doable.

As for space above the top staff being needed for spacing systems apart, if neewell, just put in a  "extra space between systems" if it's enough of a problem.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #10 –
...Sorry to keep replying, but one last thought: The ability to repress staves is probaby the worst drawback of Noteworthy at the moment. It can make for some really hideous scores, particularly in vocal scores for opera, where a series of solos can easily expand out into grand finales with six or more singers plus a chorus, then collapse into piano-only for a lenghthy playout.

Please give us the ability to set such things without having to do a cut and paste job with photocopying afterwards. It's otherwise such a great program, but that's probably the worst thing holding it back.

[second on my wishlist is the ability to suppress the indications of Triplets, and possibly dots on notes from being shown - this would allow for all sorts of easy visual effects.]

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #11 –
Adam, I don't understand the dotted notes without visible dots thing.  Written music is for the benefit of the musician trying to understand what the composer intended him/her to play.  Conventional notation does that.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #12 –
The ability to suppress Triplet markings is more useful: it'd make septets easy - just hide the triplet marking and put in a 7 instead, and also a variety of effects such as the 6/8 vs. 2/4 way of writing extended triplet counterpoint - but the ability to suppress the dots would be occassionally useful for duplets and the like.

Re: Different number of staffs to be printed in one song

Reply #13 –
Hello, it's been long since I spent some time on the forum.

I am no great IT-specialist who is able to tackle the mentioned problem. I do, however, like the possibility that staffs are not printed when empty. I myself, for instance, write the music, which my wife composes, for SATB quartet. Sometimes there is a solo, or an instrumental introduction. Then it is silly to print the rests of all the other voices.

In my quest for a solution I stumbled on a notationsoftware called "Bladmuziek 2.4" by barkusoff (www.barkusoff.nl). This programme gives the opportunity of not printing the staffs when empty. In my opinion that is the only advantage in comparison to NWC. I tried it for 1 day but NWC is still the best. Especially after the latest upgrade. Entering notes and texts is superior to that of any other programme I know, e.g. Finale, Notations, Bladmuziek.

Perhaps one of the smart guys is able to discover the tric and to implement it in NWC?