Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Timing or Mathmatical Problem (Read 81481 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #50 –
All those things you mentioned in MS Word - automatic capitalization, automatic superscripts, automatic translation to hyperlinks, etc. - can be turned off. They're all turned off on my machine. You just have to be willing to dig a little deeper into the program (you'll find most of them, as Rob suggests, under "autocorrect options").

Mainly, that's what we're asking you to do with NWC - dig a little deeper. Most of the things you are complaining that the program can't do can actually be done if you're willing to do that digging. Your earlier confusion (in another thread) among invisible objects, layered staves, and hidden staves comes to mind. Are you using hidden staves for playback yet? Or, as in so many of the suggestions we've made, are you simply rejecting them out of hand?

As to your tone, I think the word "supercilious" fits it best. Look it up.

Early in one of the other threads on this forum, you stated that you were well aware of your tone and chose it on purpose. Do you understand yet that it doesn't work? Can you choose something else?

Look: we're trying to be friends, here. Some of us have gone out of our way to praise your insights when they are on target. A little friendliness back, a little willingness to admit that you might occasionally be wrong, and you'd be surprised how soon the walls melt away.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #51 –
bidderxyzzy,

At 84 and nearlyb85 years of age, I have seen a lot of life and to the best of my ability try to offend no one but put forward my views without  claiming that I am always correct ( even if I know that I am)  I have to say with others that you are being a little too aggressive in these forums and a little less agrression would be welcome. It need not in any way stop you from expressing an opinion, or even a fact.

Tony

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #52 –
In any soap, this would be the time for tears.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #53 –
Before this makes the Top 10 Topics (by Replies), It would be nice to have the title changed to: Timing or Mathematical Problem

I doubt that Carl Mill had any idea that his little problem would generate this many replies. Enshrining this topic with a spelling error would seem unfair to him.

Too late. Besides, I've been informed that there are technical difficulties with my request.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #54 –
Quote
Your earlier confusion (in another thread) among invisible objects, layered staves, and hidden staves comes to mind. Are you using hidden staves for playback yet? Or, as in so many of the suggestions we've made, are you simply rejecting them out of hand?

   Whoa.  Here I must cry foul.  There is not and never was any confusion in my mind about various kinds of hidden stuff.  I merely pointed out that when you give a customer a NoteWorthy file (not a printout or a generated midi file or a wma or mp3 file) and he has a fully functional NoteWorthy program (not the Reader), then unless there is an undocumented password lock on individual bits of notation, nothing whatever can be hidden from him if he chooses to use the contents dialogue box under page setup.  Hidden notation, though it doesn't print, appears on screen in a sort of goldish highlight.  And I do routinely exclude the accompaniment from display on most of my distributed files.  I am not "dismissing" anything, out of hand or otherwise, but rather pointing out that having a diverse audience for what I produce makes any use of obscure trickery or attempt to "hide" a lack in NoteWorthy by having separate printing and playback staves completely futile.

   As to my language, I am not attacking any individual in this forum or for that matter NoteWorthy itself, but merely calling a spade a spade.  NoteWorthy Version 1 would have been a joke as a serious music-engraving program, but as far as I can see, no such claim was ever made.  I believe NW1 was intended to give composers and arrangers a quick way of hearing approximately what their music sounded like without hiring an orchestra or straining their keyboard skills.  NW2 seems to be trying to make it as a serious engraver, but with such an obvious in your face "property" as its handling of the orchestral staff attribute, it can hardly avoid remaining a joke.

   Thanks for pointing to the "options" button under "AutoFormat" under the "format" dropdown menu.  That still leaves font substitution, but more to the point I was trying to point out that sometimes there are reasons for using a program that have nothing to do with its quality.  In the case of Word, it is that it is a defacto standard.  In the case of NoteWorthy they are its superior rendering of files into sound linked to a note chase and the tiny size of its binary files.  Still, I would like to print scores which will not be dismissed as "some computer printout". 

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #55 –
OK - let's try this again on the hidden staves. I'm sorry we don't seem to be making ourselves clear. The technique we are talking about hides staves completely, on both the screen and the printout. No "sort of goldish highlight." Nothing.

Please open a multi-stave file in Noteworthy. Now, under the file menu, choose "Page Setup." Click on the tab at the far left, labeled "contents." You will see two text boxes, one labeled "groups" and the other labeled "visible parts." The "visible parts" box will contain the same number of lines of text as there are staves in your score. Each of these lines will consist of the name of one of the staves, plus a checkbox at the left end of the line. By default, each of these is checked. If you uncheck any of them, the staff it corresponds with will disappear completely from the screen. Vanished. Kaput. Gone. But it will still play during playback. So to get the playback to sound right on a staff that needs a lot of tweaking with what would otherwise be hidden notes:

  • Create a second copy of the staff, so that you have two identical staves.
  • Make one copy look right, and then mute it.
  • Make the other copy sound right, and then hide it by unchecking it in the "contents" box.

I hope this helps.

As to the look of NWC scores, I have never had a performer complain, even about NWC I. My stuff is usually played by professional musicians (music faculty at our local university, mostly), and they can be pretty picky. I do agree that the very early versions of NWC (mid-1990s) produced pretty raw-looking scores. I stuck through the program through those days because of its ease of use and its potential, and I feel that potential is now being realized. I suspect most others in this forum would say the same thing. We're a pretty loyal bunch, as you might have noticed. When you call our baby a "joke," we tend to get upset. That is the long and the short of our disagreement with you - or, at least, it is of mine.

I hope this helps, too.

Good luck with the hidden staves. Let us know how they come out.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #56 –
William, you wrote
Quote
the very early versions of NWC (mid-1990s) produced pretty raw-looking scores.
  Do you think that may have been partly to do with the printers that were available in thoses days?  The good old dot matrix beasts?


Bidderxyzzy, c'mon!  4 days ago you asked:
Quote
Show me where I have been abusive, demeaning, obscene, or even just "snide".

Today, in just one reply, you managed abusive, demeaning and snide:
Quote
obscure trickery
Quote
NoteWorthy Version 1 would have been a joke as a serious music-engraving program
Quote
it can hardly avoid remaining a joke.

Relax, it will all be the same in 100 years.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #57 –
... and today you managed so much in one single paragraph:
"As to my language, I am not attacking any individual in this forum or for that matter NoteWorthy itself
<snip> it can hardly avoid remaining a joke."
All jokes aside, I still seriously doubt that you have had a good laugh in the past 10 years.

But hey, what a golden opportunity. I have been wanting to say this for days. Thanks!
Bizz off, Xidderbuzzy.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #58 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
Please open a multi-stave file in Noteworthy. Now, under the file menu, choose "Page Setup." Click on the tab at the far left, labeled "contents." You will see two text boxes, one labeled "groups" and the other labeled "visible parts." The "visible parts" box will contain the same number of lines of text as there are staves in your score. Each of these lines will consist of the name of one of the staves, plus a checkbox at the left end of the line. By default, each of these is checked. If you uncheck any of them, the staff it corresponds with will disappear completely from the screen. Vanished. Kaput. Gone. But it will still play during playback.
Good point.  This is already done in your "Samples" folder:  Look at Moonlight.
Since 1998

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #59 –
   How dense can one be?  After I describe just how I make staves hidden and how they will not remain hidden when a user gets hold of them and "unhides" them, you still think you are making a contribution by giving a condescending description of how to do what I just said I have been doing all along? 

   As for the appearance of NoteWorthy Version One scores, they were perfectly useful, at least if one put in hairpins and orchestral brackets by hand and ignored the always flat ties and slurs, among many other things, but they were definitely not high quality engravings.  If that satisfies you, so be it.  But don't put down anyone who wants something better, it only makes you look silly.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #60 –
Message deleted, after sober second thought.  It ain't worth it.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #61 –
Why am I thinking of Victor Meldrew now?

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #62 –

bidderxyzzy  - My wife reminds me with some frequency that it's not necessarily what you say as much as how you say it. She's right!  We understand that you and your people are doing real and important things, but realize that the endevors of others are just as important and real as yours. It's not necessary to offer anything to anyone for their kind and polite assistance, however a simple "thanks" is common courtesy here on this forum as well as anywhere else in the world, even if their efforts don't bring about the desired result. The idea, I believe is to have a place where we can come to get help when we need it from knowledgable people who use the same program as well as to reciprocate when we can. Different points of view are welcome as that is how we may best solve our problems. And I have to agree, if you have pissed off Lawrie, you have to be trying very hard so please, Lighten up! Regards...

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #63 –
C'est le ton qui fait la Noteworthy.
Et en disant ça, j'ai décidé moi-même que Noteworthy est femelle?
Tant mieux, je l'aimerai toujours.
amitiés, Rob.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #64 –
OK - guilty as charged. I didn't see the bit in your post about being afraid your users would get into the contents box and turn on the hidden staves. Jumped right over it to the little golden highlights. (They're grey on my machine, but never mind.) I guess I skipped that bit because I can't figure out why you would care if your users saw the hidden staves. No one is ever likely to get there by accident - it takes three separate and distinct steps, and the chance of accidentally doing them all in order is pretty low. That leaves us with the people who get there by fiddling around with the program, and they are likely to be able to fiddle their way back out again. After all, if they are registered NWC users, they have a right to use the program as they please - they don't have to limit themselves to only doing what you want them to. So what's the problem?

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #65 –
Good day, Gentlemen,

   Finally we are getting down to something of substance, both in terms of NoteWorthy and my "attitude".  I can assure you all that with the slightest hint about just what you object to, I will soon be able to avoid people's toes altogether and not just their corns.

   I am not "afraid" of anything my users will do, and in fact encourage them to become adept at using the tools I give them.  I have a question for all of the "hidden trickery" party, not just Mr. Ashworth, who was kind enough just now to give me a reasoned reply.  Why do you want your work hidden?  I hide the accompaniment only so that there will be more room on the screen for my singer's parts, and expect them to be aware of and change the accompaniment when needed, if only to correct the balance of volume for their particular sound hardware.  I have all along been objecting only to the idea that the ability to cobble together something that sounds the way you want it to but is so ugly it needs to be hidden behind a pretty but muted staff gives the developers an excuse (sometimes it sounds like "a good reason") to deny the user community the tools that would let the real nitty gritty be presentable.  As far as NoteWorthy becoming a truly serious fine engraving program, the LilyPond project, if it reaches its potential, which is still an open question, will surely eclipse not only NoteWorthy but Finale, Sibelius and every possible past and future bits of music software except, possibly, a clone of itself run by a different group of people. I will give my thought on this fuller expression in a thread of its own.

   Meanwhile, back to the original topic of this thread.  Chords in NoteWorthy are problematic, and there are several current threads concerning difficulties created by the way they are handled.  This thread concerns a situation where the length of a measure as calculated by NoteWorthy (and please, let's handle the question of whether NoteWorthy should calculate the length of a measure in its own thread) differs according to whether a note is represented by a single half note or two tied quarter notes.  Would anyone care to defend the position that this behavior is correct and should not be changed?  Would anyone care to defend the position that even though this behavior is incorrect it should not be corrected?  Would anyone care to defend the position that though the behavior should be corrected, the developer(s) are fully entitled to sit on it forever?  I await your answer(s).

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #66 –
Yes, I'm perfectly happy to defend it. NWC calculates the length of the chord (including single notes of course) by using its shortest or only component. This behaviour is consistent, predictable and straightforward. Any attempt to decipher an ambiguous situation (admittedly this one is not because the minim is tied) would lead to complication and uncertainty whereas NWC thrives on its simplicity and lack of restriction on what a user can insert onto the staff.

And in any case the two examples are not the same. The minim will produce an ambiguity: tied crotchets will remove it.

And the problem is easily resolved. Use layering, or change the tied minim to

Quote
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem,VertOffset=2000|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2o^|Color:0|Visibility:Default

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #67 –
Quote from: bidderxyzzy –
Would anyone care to defend the position that though the behavior should be corrected, the developer(s) are fully entitled to sit on it forever, even though they have sold an imperfect product?

Hi, Bidderxyzzy,

I have been reading this thread for some time now and have been amazed at how your perceived expectations far exceed reality.  I probably shouldn't post this, but I felt I should.

In my mind, the above statement posted by you pretty much sums up your attitude that folks have been talking about.  It's very easy to say, "well, all the programmer has to do is yada yada..."  It's not always so easy to actually do that, and I don't know any programmer who is going to change priorities just because bidderxyzzy demanded it.

I would be extremely curious as to what other programs you run that are NOT imperfect.  Or better yet, what else in life that is NOT imperfect.  And if that is the standard you expect in this wonderful $39 program, then it's plain that you will NEVER be happy.

It's one thing to strive for excellence (notice I didn't say perfection, because you'll never get there); it's another thing to criticize just because it doesn't live up to your sense of perfection.

You need to get over it.  If we all waited for perfection we'd be waiting an awfully long time, and not getting anything done in the process.

Why don't you take heart in the fact that a lot of folks have found workarounds (and in NWC 2, user tools).  You can always still go to the wish list and express how the program can better serve your needs, so you might not need workarounds in the future.  It's even okay to discuss the issue on the forum (in a civil manner); it's not okay to just demand that it be fixed because you happen to be inconvenienced.

I'm amazed that you are asking for fixes to 1.75, when you know perfectly well that 2.0 is superseding it.  Hmmm, maybe I should ask Microsoft to update Word 97, because I liked it a lot more than Word 2000.  Maybe they could add some of the Word 2000 features I do like into Word 97.  Do you think they'll do that for me?

I find it interesting that you say, "try Music Publisher.  Of course, it can't play the music".  Hmmm, where's the perfection there?

I also noticed that at the start of this thread, William Ashworth was generally in agreement with you on several point, but then he posted:

Quote
Do you understand yet? Your insights are welcome. Your tone is not. This forum is designed to point to possible improvements in the program, not to insult the intelligence of the programmer. We are Eric's helpers, not his superiors. And, no, you aren't his superior either.

You seem to be demanding an awful lot from a $39 program.  You even mentioned that NWC should hire musicians to help make the product better.  Well, I think Eric and company understand music well enough to keep making NWC better.  I really wouldn't want NWC to bloat up so much that the end result is a several hundred dollar program (you got to pay the people working for you) that works as perfectly as say, Finale or Sibelius (he says with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

Bring up your issues; we'll talk about them.  Visit the wish list and submit the changes you would like to see (but remember, it's a wishlist, not a demand list).  Learn the workarounds to use in the interim.  And get on with your life; life's too short to be so critical over stuff that really doesn't matter that much.

Expressing frustration about what you don't like is okay.  As I read the forum, for example, Rick G. has lots of good ideas and calls out a lot of inconsistencies in the program.  That's because it's not perfect.  Did you get that; it's not perfect.  Rick knows it; Lawrie knows it; I know it; everyone knows it.  We don't expect it to be perfect.  But it can be better.  So the ideas and suggestions are presented and discussed.  That's how change comes about.  And Rick takes the time to write a user tool to overcome many of the obstacles; so does Lawrie and Andrew and others.  That's one of the beauties of NWC 2.0, you can change a lot of what you don't like.  And by the way, over time, many wishes do actually get granted.  Maybe not on your time schedule, but Eric and Co. does seem to take seriously the serious wishes posted to the wishlist.

It's not what you say, bidderxyzzy, it's how you say it.  Constructive criticism is always welcome; dissing the program because it's not what you think it should be is not.
John

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #68 –
I have this funny feeling... say no more?

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #69 –
Thanks, John, for a brilliant summation.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #70 –
Gentlemen,

   Please, how is recognizing a genuine fault "dissing" NoteWorthy?  How does claiming that the potential existence of an ambiguity, admitted not to be present here, somehow make reacting differently to musically synonymous input just fine and dandy?  I find NoteWorthy the only program available that even vaguely meets the need for a user controllable vocal practice aid.  I would like to see it improved, and do not understand those who see a polite request to have an obvious bug fixed as a demand for perfection, which it most certainly is not.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #71 –
<Image Link>
John

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #72 –
Quote from: David Palmquist –
Today, in just one reply, you managed abusive, demeaning and snide:
I took 'obscure trickery' as a compliment, but David, you are correct: it was probably intended to be snide.

Quote from: bidderxyzzy –
This thread concerns a situation where the length of a measure as calculated by NoteWorthy (and please, let's handle the question of whether NoteWorthy should calculate the length of a measure in its own thread) differs according to whether a note is represented by a single half note or two tied quarter notes.
No, it does not. It concerns where the next note/chord/rest should be placed after a RestChord or Chord with differing durations (IOW, |Dur: <> |Dur2:). The solution for the original poster was to either use layering or to use a tie. He chose a tie.

Before layering (c. 1998), NoteWorthy tried to handle 2 voices on one staff without forcing the User to expressly mark each note/rest/chord as to its voice. This was all in the spirit of NWC being easy to get a song done without mastering the entire program. It was found to be inherently unworkable. One reason was this very problem. There were others. It was a painful realization that was reached only after much discussion.

RestChords and split stem Chords are legacy objects. There is nothing that can be done with them on one staff that cannot be done without them on 2 layered staves. This has been true for about 7 years. AFAIK, there has never been an official announcement, but NoteWorthy stopped all enhancement of them somewhere around v1.70. They are supported in about the same sense that Micro$oft supports Outlook Express 6 in XP. It runs, but don't look for new features.

Some examples: NWC2 adds 'Use stems for articulations' to every RestChord even if it has no articulation. This might make some sense if an articulation could be added later, but this is not possible except by editing the ClipText. Modifing the 'Vertical Offset' runs into the same wall. RestChords cannot be beamed and split stem Chords do not beam properly. Split stem chords lack independent adjustment of stem lengths making them generally worthless in a song with Lyrics.

These problems have existed for years. IMO, they don't get fixed because you can always put each voice in its own layer.

Quote from: Rick G. in a bad paraphrase of Obi Wan Kenobe
You don't need these bugs fixed. These aren't the solutions you are looking for. Time to move along ...
(to  slurs!)

This topic was dormant for 2 months until I posted <this>. I now regret doing it.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #73 –
No regrets, Rick. You had no way of knowing what would happen, and the exchange may have been fruitful for some users who haven't dug as deep into the program as some of the rest of us.

Bidderxyzzy, there are three reasons I don't mind doing workarounds to get the sound right, and then hiding them:

  • I can get the sound I want now while I wait for future improvements.
  • The program isn't cluttered up with multiple ways to call the same MIDI operation and complicated routines to get simple results. You may have noticed the downloads are still under one megabyte. Incredible and admirable in this day and age.
  • Having the ability to hide playback staves means that others can come up with symbol fonts (such as BoxMarks, or Lawrie's suites) that can deal with some of NWC's omissions and still be made to sound right.

I could probably come up with others, on reflection. As to the engraving, as I pointed out earlier, I have never had a performer complain, and that's really what counts, isn't it? Do your scores really have to go into the Music Engravers' Hall of Fame? Isn't it enough that they are easy to read, and that your intentions are clear?

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #74 –
   In case you haven't already noticed, I am a devotee of putting each voice on its own staff and layering.  This gives total control, and when neat printing is desired, suppressing redundant rests and putting in the extra note space sometimes needed when voices cross is tedious but straightforward.  I recognize the fossil dinosaur in split stem, split duration and rest chords, and was thankful for the invention of layering, which came along just when I really started to need it, particularly for putting in complex piano accompaniments.

   However you view the details of the cause of the origin of this thread, understanding why a behavior occurs does not make it not a bug.  Musically synonymous constructs must be treated consistently.  If your expectation that this will never be fixed is true, it won't affect my use of NoteWorthy, as I don't use the construct that is failing here, but again this doesn't make it not a bug.

   I can and do agree that workarounds are sometimes a necessary stopgap, but that doesn't mean that generating them is the right way to go.  My first priority, if not always my first action, is to get deficiencies properly defined and documented.  It's what I wanted my customers to do when I was making my living developing software, and I think it's perfectly appropriate here.

   NoteWorthy Version 2 will, with a little graphic editing to put in titles and orchestral brackets, produce printouts that don't immediately strike the eye as crude, and even Version 1.75 produces something perfectly usable as intermediate drafts when working on a piece.  But what is acceptable in private and for limited distribution just doesn't hack it when you want to publish.  If you don't know for yourself, just trust me on this one.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #75 –
Well, my friend, before you begin lecturing me on how the publishing industry operates, you might want to check my Website. Here's the link:

http://williamashworth.net/

I have not published music, but I doubt that industry is substantially different from the book-publishing world, with which I am intimately familiar. If you have something they don't want to publish, they'll measure the margins of your MS and reject it if they're a millimeter to narrow. If you have something they do want to publish, they don't care if it's submitted handwritten in purple ink on lined yellow paper, which is how Ogden Nash used to submit his poetry in an era when other poets' work was being rejected for the wrong typescript format. The blunt fact is that they're going to reset it before publication anyway, so that it matches house style. This is true even if you submit it electronically, either on disc or via e-mail. Trust me on this.

I'm sorry, bidderxyzzy, but the world just doesn't operate on the level of perfection you seem to want it to. I was going to offer you good luck in getting it there, but I really don't want it there. I prefer a little tolerance for differences. It might do you a world of good if you would practice a little tolerance, too.

Cheers,

William Ashworth

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #76 –
Good, B***y. In toto et summo, you don't understand, and you never will.
I have a wish, now. For this subject to be locked. You are obviously too old to learn, and have been so for many, many years.
I have here a teacloth with musical "definitions". You will find it of no humoristic value, because you clearly have forgotten how to laugh, but I do.

One of the lines reads:
       Dim - Thick.
I will remember you, not always, but quite a few times, every time I come across a diminuendo.
cheers,
Rob.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #77 –
Quote
It might do you a world of good if you would practice a little tolerance, too.

Quote
You will find it of no humoristic value, because you clearly have forgotten how to laugh

Motes and beams come to mind. I suggest turning of the cheek would be more effective. Please stop it gentlemen.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #78 –
More effective? Fraid not. John's post was excellent. His next post was a headbanging smiley.
Nothing is effective. That's why I suggested this thread to be closed. And I do not care/mind if it gets deleted altogether. It's a blot on the landscape.

(As you know, I like to quote. "And a rousing toodle-oo to you, you young blot on the landscape," she replied cordially.)
cheers,
Rob.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #79 –
I think I agree with Rob about locking this thread, although it should probably stick around as an object lesson.

I don't want to write bidderxyzzy off completely - check his contributions to the thread on the page numbering bug in 2.20 - but when he gets on his high horse (which is most of the time) and starts being snide, insulting and condescending, he pushes every button I've got, and this thread is full of it ;-)

John's headbanging smiley expresses my frustration perfectly. Lawrie has apparently left the building. It's probably time to pull the plug.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #80 –
   Bill, you are awfully sensitive if you find half a sentence a lecture.  Besides, read what you wrote:

Quote
I have not published music, but I doubt that industry is substantially different from the book-publishing world…  [emphasis added]
   And contemplate the advice of Wittgenstein
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)


   You are right about one thing, I will never understand the motivation of someone who would deny others their desires merely because they want something he does not want. 

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #81 –
John, I need to borrow this:

<Image Link>

Thanks - I needed that.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #82 –
How about a substantive comment, or is all you can do is be negative? 

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #83 –
I count [abbr=Carl Mill, Robin L. Øye, David Palmquist, Lawrie Pardy, NoteWorthy Online, fitzclan, felisek, Rick G., bidderxyzzy, William Ashworth, Cyril Alberga, Rob den Heijer, tony smedley, Warren Porter, Peter Edwards, John Ford]16 contributors[/abbr] to this thread and only one thinks that the topic is a bug.
IMO, the undecided are best represented by:
Quote from: Cyril Alberga –
I'm not sure that there IS an algorithm which could decide where (in the time stream) the next note goes, and still make everyone happy. <snip>
I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I would really like to see a set of rules that would result in what the user wants.
Having had the last word, I too would like the topic locked :)
Registered user since 1996

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #84 –
OK: Substantive Comment.

I have checked six different music publishers' submission guidelines. I quit at that point because all of them said exactly what I expected them to. As The Boosey & Hawkes guidelines quite eloquently put it:

Quote
Please make sure the copy is legible.

Beethoven could never have been published under that guideline, but that is beside the point. Finale scores, Sibelius scores, Noteworthy scores, handwritten scores - it's all the same, because the publisher will redo it in house style anyway.

One gets to know a business when one has spent thirty years in it. And I am now going to join Lawrie, wherever he went. He is a very wise man, and we all should follow his example more often.

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #85 –
Quote
it's all the same, because the publisher will redo it in house style anyway.

William, I appreciate your experience in the real publishing world, but I think we have to recognize that more and more composers self-publish, because they have the software and get to make a profit instead of having that go to the publishers and distributers. That's arguably a good thing.

Unfortunately the quality of the printed outputs varies a bit. 

I guess we'll get used to it. 




Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #86 –
Hi David,

I wasn't going to get back into this thread, but I did want to respond to your thoughtful note re self-publication. I agree with all that you said, and in fact all of my music so far has been self-published. I just didn't think that was what we were talking about. And, honestly, when I look at much self-published music out there, I give thanks that Noteworthy is as good as it is. It's not as good as it can get, but I think that's why we're here.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

Reply #87 –
That... and for the hell of it.

The message herein has been worded in different ways; here's another.

As I hung my harp in the willow tree
it turned its weeping face to me
and asked in tones, unpleasantly sharp:
Why not yourself instead of the harp?

Kind invitation but it lacked
as you'll agree the grace of tact,
and gentlemen don't hang at ease
among the leaves of tactless trees.

So I refused, which taught that tree
a lesson in civility
and you, my readers, how in fact
a question should be asked with tact.

cheers,
Rob.