Skip to main content
Topic: Timing or Mathmatical Problem (Read 66432 times)

## Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### 2006-05-13 07:34 pm
I am notating a piece with many timing changes throughout and have run into a problem that may be a glitch in coding.  When notating the same staff with stem up and stem down notes of different timing values the length of the bar extends beyond the correct timing of the bar.  The bar has notes of the same values, just in reverse of each other.  See below.

INSERT BARS ON SEPARATE STAFFS TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

STAFF 1
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1|Opts:Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:5|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Crescendo
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Crescendo
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

STAFF 2
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

STAFF 3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:-2^|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo,Tie=Downward
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Now when I use 2 tied quarter notes the bar length is correct.

STAFF 4
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-2^|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo,Tie=Downward
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-2^
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Any ideas other than layering?

Thanks

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #1 – 2006-05-13 11:58 pm
Carl,

Hard to say... interesting problem.  Thought I had it momentarily, but I was wrong...

Robin

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #2 – 2006-05-14 01:48 am
I have to agree it's an interesting problem.  Another interesting problem is trying to beam the upper and lower note pairings in a drum part like this:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Chord|Dur:8th,Dotted|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:8th,Dotted|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First|Dur2:8th,Dotted|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:16th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End|Dur2:16th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5x|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

No matter how good the programming, it will never address all of the permutations we find in written music.   I venture to speculate that Eric gave us layering precisely to provide reasonably easy and suitable workarounds to what could be unforeseen eventualities.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #3 – 2006-05-14 02:50 am
G'day Carl,
was about to reply a few hours ago but had to leave to go to church, just back now...

I don't believe the particular construct you're trying is possible in NWC without layering...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - 'n I'm lernin' tubies now too

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #4 – 2006-05-14 03:14 am
Without layering, your third staff, 2nd bar would need to be written like this:

Code: [Select · Download]
`!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)|TimeSig|Signature:3/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-2^|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo,Tie=Downward|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-2|Bar!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End`

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #5 – 2006-05-14 05:01 am
Thanks guys.  I was hoping the problem was solvable.  I already fixed it with two tied quarter notes.  Much easier than layering.  Maybe this can be fixed down the road.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #6 – 2006-05-14 06:15 pm
Carl,
It seems to me that you have an extra quarter beat in the third staff which makes it 4/4 instead of 3/4. Changing the half note to a quarter gives you the correct timing for the measure.  i.e. -  What you have is 4 quarter beats in a 3 quarter beat measure - or maybe I'm missing something? I'm questioning myself because it seems that none of the others who replied are seeing that.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #7 – 2006-05-14 06:23 pm
Hey David,
Now that is peculiar!

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #8 – 2006-05-14 06:58 pm
Quote
Hey David, Now that is peculiar!
I have to ask, Fitzclan - do you mean the dotted 8th/16th for the bass drum is peculiar (I suspect it is), or do you mean the beam problem itself?  (grin)

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #9 – 2006-05-15 12:14 am
Well David,
While my son is a drummer, I haven't spent much time looking at the actual notation of drum music so I don't know if that is unusual or not. I suspect I shall have to ask him.  I was talking about the beaming (or non-beaming), problem.  That, I think would be annoying to me if I was to notate for drums.
The other problem (the one with timing of notes), does not pose a problem that I can see.  When you tie notes together to lengthen the sustained duration between measures, you can chop up the time in whatever fashion will work, but you can't put 4 quarter beats in a 3/4 measure and expect it to line up vertically with a 3/4 measure that contains 3 quarter beats!

we concur

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #11 – 2006-05-17 11:05 pm
The solution to the problem is to use quarter rest in chord with the half note, so that NWC knows that the quarter at the end of the bar follows another quarter (rest) parallel to the half, not he half itself. You can make it invisible if you prefer.

Code: [Select · Download]
`!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:3/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3|Bar!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End`

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #12 – 2006-05-18 02:26 am
Almost, but not quite.  By making the rest invisible, the underlaying note is also invisible.

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3
|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #13 – 2006-05-19 01:45 am
Carl,
I am wondering why you would want to hide the quarter rest.  Felisek's solution is correct. The half note still stretches the half plus the eighth beat it is tied to. The rest just allows the next quarter note (the B#), to attack where you want it to (half way through the half beat), instead of after the duration of the half note. This is quite acceptable notation. I have run into this kind of thing many times when copying from sheet music. The way it is written doesn't always fly when you start counting the actual beats.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #14 – 2006-05-19 05:09 am
G'day Duncan,
I take your point but when trying to reproduce a score it can be nice to be as close as possible to the composers notation.  So...

How about moving the rest up higher than the staff, and then using some "digital white-out" to cover it.  Highlight 7 is White, font User5 is WingDings 24pt (my staff size is 16pt)

Code: [Select · Download]
`!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:3/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,ArticulationsOnStem,VertOffset=10|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^|Text|Text:"n"|Font:User1|Pos:10|Justify:Right|Color:7|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3|Bar!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End`

Lawrie
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - 'n I'm lernin' tubies now too

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #15 – 2006-05-21 12:02 am
Now that's using your noodle! Pretty ingenious, I never would have thought of that solution.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #16 – 2006-05-21 02:12 am
G'day Duncan,

Now that's using your noodle! Pretty ingenious, I never would have thought of that solution.

If I recall correctly, it was RickG who introduced me to the idea of "digital white-out"...  I use it on the odd occasion...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - 'n I'm lernin' tubies now too

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #17 – 2006-05-21 03:04 am
If I recall correctly, it was RickG who introduced me to the idea of "digital white-out"...

Guilty. But I use it only as a last resort. Even though it is "white", my printer still counts it as a color and goes into "half-speed" mode. Also, since it must be used after what you want to obliterate, it is tricky to fix the position if you can't attach it to something. In the above example, I would use a layer.

Best uses for digital white-out I've found are:
• wipe out staves to the end of the line for special endings
• change triplet 3 to a 6
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #18 – 2006-05-21 03:44 am
Hi Lawrie, highlight 7 on my version of NWC2 is orange.  There is no white option.  I tried moving the rest out of the sight but it will only move +/-15, so that's no help.  I think the solution in the coding, i.e., the timing of the stem up notes should be independent of the stem down notes.  I'm not a programmer so I don't know if this is possible.  I guess I'll stick with the tied stem down quarter notes for this piece.

Thanks,

Carl

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #19 – 2006-05-21 03:51 am
G'day Carl,
in |Tools|Options|Color tab you can change the colours NWC uses.  This is where I have changed Highlight 7 to white in my system.  This is a system wide setting, not NWC file specific.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - 'n I'm lernin' tubies now too

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #20 – 2006-05-21 04:13 am
Thanks Lawrie, didn't know that.

Thanks again.

Carl

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #21 – 2007-07-25 08:38 am
Now you don't need "digital whiteout" to hide the rest. See:
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5868.0
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #22 – 2007-09-30 02:47 am
The extended discussion here about hidden rests and digital whiteout ignores the simple fact that staff 3 and staff 4 (staves 1 and 2 are irrelevant) are musically synonymous and should be interpreted and played identically.  Carl is not trying to stuff four beats into a three beat measure.  NoteWorthy is refusing to recognize that the stem up quarter note in the ¾ measure should begin in the middle of the stem down half note.  Breaking up the half note into two tied quarter notes gives the rendering engine a chance to recognize the presence of the final stem up quarter note before it's too late to do anything about it, but all events need to be recognized when they occur, not after some previous event is finished.

Diagnosis: Bug.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #23 – 2007-09-30 06:00 am
It seems as though we've had this discussion about bugs before, elsewhere in this forum, bidderxyzzy;-); but in this case, I agree with you. NWC doesn't render two voices on the same staff correctly. The problem David pointed to (the inability to beam the lower voice of a two-voice setting) is related. It doesn't have to be drum parts: beaming only works on the upper voice of any two-voice setting. I've run up against this situation many times.

The real problem here is that NWC doesn't actually do two voices on the same staff. What it appears to do (I haven't seen the code, so I can't say for sure) is to look at a chord with two different note durations in it, choose the shorter duration, and render the rest of the measure as if the shorter note's duration was the duration of the whole chord. You can watch this happen. Take any multi-part score in 4/4 and place a whole note in one of the parts. The measures in that part will line up with the rest of the parts. Now create a second line of quarter notes on the same staff as the whole note. As you place the first quarter note (the one you do by <control><enter> against the whole note), the measure will immediately shrink to the length of a quarter note, and will slowly expand as you enter the remaining three notes until the bars line up again. If you backspace those quarter notes out of existence, the measure will shrink again, and then jump back up to its proper length as you erase the quarter note that is directly against the whole note. It is a telling fact that, to add or erase notes in the voice with shorter durations, you use a simple enter or backspace rather than <control><enter> or <control><backspace>. As far as the program is concerned, you are adding and subtracting beats to or from the measure as a whole, not to or from a single voice.

Not sure if that last paragraph makes a lot of sense if you haven't figured it out already. The bottom line, here, is that two-voice writing on a single staff in NWC is done as a sort of kludge, and this leads to incorrect notation in a small but significant number of cases. I'm not sure there's a way around this without completely restructuring the format in which NWC writes files, which would open a whole can of worms. One thing we would be likely to lose - besides backward compatibility - would be the extremely small size of NWC files. IMO, resorting to layering in these cases is a small price to pay.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #24 – 2007-09-30 01:40 pm
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.  So, we have a chord with a quarter and a half note.  We now enter a quarter note.  On what basis do you decide which of the two notes in the chord this should follow?  Sure, once the notes are in place you can READ them correctly, but I don't see any way to figure out what is meant during the entry process.

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.

We still don't have "Branch on intent" in the machine architecture!

Cyril N. Alberga

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #25 – 2007-09-30 09:40 pm
Well, one way would be by the direction of the stems. Another might be by checking the location of the next barline and doing the math - although that would depend on the user placing the barline correctly, so it wouldn't be completely dependable. It would also take a fair amount of extra code. But checking the stem direction shouldn't be hard to implement. The backward compatibility issue is what seems to me to make this problem less important to work on than some others, because I do think it would require enough changes in the file structure, and in the rendering engine, to make compatibility a problem. I'd love to be proved wrong.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #26 – 2007-09-30 10:58 pm
Carl's STAFF 3 can be done like this:
Code: [Select · Download]
`!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:#-7|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Half|Pos2:1|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#-8|Opts:Stem=Down|DynamicVariance|Style:Rinforzando|Pos:-15|Visibility:Never|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-4|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:n-8^|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:3/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-8|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:3|RestChord|Dur:4th|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo,ArticulationsOnStem,VertOffset=2000|Dur2:Half|Pos2:-2^|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:#0|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Bar|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Dur2:Half|Pos2:5|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-2|Opts:Stem=Down,Crescendo|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-3|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Up,Crescendo|Dur2:4th|Pos2:b-3|Bar!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End`
I don't think it would be an improvement to have the # of beats in a measure change when stem directions change.
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #27 – 2007-09-30 11:17 pm
It seems to me that worrying about stem directions (particularly of whole-notes/semi-breves) is something I could do without.  In these cases, I simply layer, let the stems point as they may, and then flip them all in one operation.  But, that aside, the original question involved notes following a chord with multiple length notes.  Now, all of those notes have a stem point in the same direction, so how do you match the following notes to the correct one of them.  You can't count on vertical position, as voices may cross (which is likely to throw the stem direction clue into a cocked hat).

In addition, there are a lot of more-than-two voice cases, particularly in Bach and friends.  Some of the English suites have three and four voices in a single staff.  There is no way to write these without layering.  Why lumber the program with a kludge (that probably won't be correct a lot of the time) when it is only solving part of the set of problems?  After all, this is exactly what layering was built for.

Cyril N. Alberga

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #28 – 2007-09-30 11:21 pm
Sorry, I forgot the example.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #29 – 2007-10-01 02:37 am
On further investigation, this problem occurs in version 1.75 also.  As has here been mentioned, layering was invented specifically because the restrictions on what note lengths (and rests for that matter) can be combined into a chord makes putting more than one independent voice on a staff always difficult and mostly impossible.  The first fix I would recommend would be to have a small pamphlet written on the subject "How to use NoteWorthy musically.", as opposed to just what the commands and keystrokes will do in their own little corners.  Layering is not "a small price to pay", it is the mechanism provided for this function.  Second, while there may be no simple and obvious algorithm for saying when a note in a multi-voice staff should begin, there seems to be no ambiguity to serious and educated keyboard players how music should be read.  If the standard interpretation of a measure would depend on stem direction, then this is what NoteWorthy must do.  Here, the solution must involve adding serious musicians to the programmer(s?) at NoteWorthy software.

Personally, I have never encountered this problem because I am mostly dividing two voice vocal staves into separate staves for each voice, so that each voice can be separately muted and unmuted.  I have occasionally needed to put a third voice on a staff (I have never seen four, though SharpEye and Lime do claim to handle this), specifically the pedal in an organ part.  Attached is one of my favorites, which is my own rendering into NoteWothy of a public domain (© 1924, by J. Fischer & Bro. and not renewed) arrangement of Adeste Fideles, with added descant for soprano by my conductor.  (Well, it gets away with just two staves for left hand and pedal together, but you get the idea, I'm sure.)

Finally, a question for Rick G.  How would you create your "fix" using only the standard keystroke/mouse facilities of NoteWorthy, rather than editing the nwtext file?  Select the note and it comes up as having no duration value.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #30 – 2007-10-01 03:37 am
Finally, a question for Rick G.  How would you create your "fix" using only the standard keystroke/mouse facilities of NoteWorthy, rather than editing the nwtext file?  Select the note and it comes up as having no duration value.
Create a RestChord with a 4th rest and a Stem down Half note "G". Select it. Like all RestChords and Chords with split duration, all the duration buttons are grayed. Then invoke this User Tool. Put: "2000" in the spinbox and accept it.

NoteWorthy has a very simple method of determining where the next note is: It follows the shortest duration component of the previous Note/Chord/RestChord. I do not want NoteWorthy making this determination based on stem directions or voice analysis any more than I want a word processor to insert or remove commas based on whether my clauses are dependent or independent. Nor do I want it telling me where I must or should not have bar lines.

Diagnosis: the cure is worse than the disease
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #31 – 2007-10-01 03:48 am
Actually, NWC won't let you put two notes of different durations in the same chord on the same staff with the stems pointing the same direction - and if you try to add a note with a third duration to that chord, the program will refuse to enter it. So if you are working without layers, and have different durations in the same chord, you already have stems pointing in opposite directions. But I agree with bidderxyzzy again here: layers are the method NWC provides for putting more than one voice on the same staff. When I said they were a small price to pay, I was referring to the work involved, which is greater than it would be if you could work on a single staff. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood.

I love layers. They give you much greater flexibility than you get while working on a single unlayered staff. Voices can cross each other, rests can go where you want them to, multiple durations can appear in the same chord - you can even put several different-sounding instruments on the same staff, in the same chord, and hear all of them correctly during playback. What was asked at the beginning of this thread, though, was a question about limitations in the method NWC has provided for writing two voices on a single staff without layering. Is there a way to get around those? The simple answer is "no". The more complicated answer is "yes, but not without making some fairly deep changes in the program." The way two-voice staves are handled would have to be reconceived. The note-stem suggestion I made was just an additional kludge that would fix part of the problem -which, as many others have pointed out here, is really not a problem, just a different way of viewing how the program should operate.

Quote
I do not want NoteWorthy making this determination based on stem directions or voice analysis any more than I want a word processor to insert or remove commas based on whether my clauses are dependent or independent. Nor do I want it telling me where I must or should not have bar lines.

Neither do I, Rick - neither do I. I was just explaining how it could be done, not how it should be done.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #32 – 2007-10-01 08:59 am
Thanks guys.  I was hoping the problem was solvable.  I already fixed it with two tied quarter notes.  Much easier than layering.  Maybe this can be fixed down the road.
While layering is the answer to many questions and problems, I try to use it as little as possible.
That is: standard S-A-T-B very often goes onto layered staves, but for divisi I use chords. Since for me the printed result is not the main issue, I sometimes tie quarter notes if a chord will not be entered the way I would want it.

But I do not think a "fix" for this will be coming our way. I can live with(out) it.
cheers,
Rob.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #33 – 2007-10-01 01:50 pm
Quote
there seems to be no ambiguity to serious and educated keyboard players how music should be read.

Using this as an argument that there is no ambiguity in how it is written makes no sense.

I truly think that it is equivalent to a trap-door cypher, where having a program to read the encoded message gives you no information as to how to create it, and vise-versa.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #34 – 2007-10-01 02:52 pm
standard S-A-T-B very often goes onto layered staves, but for divisi I use chords.
Agreed. I have situations similar to this in piano music.

The ability to hide the rest allows for better solutions in a number of areas. The ability to beam notes in a RestChord would extend this. Beaming split chords would require a host of changes to the file layout and the UI, but RestChord beaming should be an easier and IMO, a worthwhile change.
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #35 – 2007-10-01 03:39 pm
Actually, there is a great deal of ambiguity among keyboard players (and all other musicians) about how music should be read, and the further back in time you go, the greater the ambiguity. I recommend Thurston Dart's wonderful little book, The Interpretation of Music. It's fifty years old, now, but still the best work I know on the subject.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #36 – 2007-10-02 05:03 am
Rick G.

The user tool is editing the nwctext, just not by hand.  I was asking for a "pure NoteWorthy" solution that would apply to 1.75, which is, after all, what I have to get my scores into for distribution to the singers in my club.

NoteWorthy has no choice; it must understand the music or it can't play it or output MIDI.  I agree with William Ashworth that as you go to historical "deep time" there is indeed some variation in how music was read, but a tool like NoteWorthy is hard enough pressed to come up with one consistent reading, and this one reading must be determined by a panel (please, not a "committee") of truly and deeply educated musicians, not a programmer who also dabbles in music or a bunch of gadflies, and on this topic I would include myself in their number.  When I said there was no ambiguity, I really should have said that this was based on only five keyboard players that I know well, and applied to "standard" music of the 18th through mid 20th century.

As far as not wanting a word processor to criticize spelling and grammar, Microsoft Word does exactly this, and not all of what it does can be turned off.  Yet millions of people, like me, put up with it.  If you want a music processor that "doesn't argue with you", try

Quote
Music Notation Software written by musicians for musicians.
Music Publisher is a professional quality music notation system for all 32-bit Windows platforms. Focussed entirely on the printed page it is above all a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get visual system. The philosophy of Music Publisher is that it is simply a replacement for pencil and paper. If you want a particular effect on your score which "breaks" the rules of music then Music Publisher will not argue! Above all it produces the notation you want to see and does not impose its own rules.
Of course, it can't play the music.

I too use chords for simple divisi which all have the same rhythm.  When they don't all have the same rhythm, this usually turns out to really be TTTBB or TTTBBB or even TTTTBBBB, which really want a staff per voice, however many fewer end up on the printed page.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #37 – 2007-10-02 05:04 am
Rick G.

The user tool is editing the nwctext, just not by hand.  I was asking for a "pure NoteWorthy" solution that would apply to 1.75, which is, after all, what I have to get my scores into for distribution to the singers in my club.
buzz off
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #38 – 2007-10-02 06:18 am
G'day bidderxyzzy,
The user tool is editing the nwctext, just not by hand.  I was asking for a "pure NoteWorthy" solution that would apply to 1.75, which is, after all, what I have to get my scores into for distribution to the singers in my club.

Don't hold your breath.  AFAIK development work on 1.75 has ceased.  Any new features will appear only in NWC2...  (there have been a couple of minor exceptions to this but they have been true bug related)

Quote
<snip>
Quote
Music Notation Software written by musicians for musicians.
Music Publisher is a professional quality music notation system for all 32-bit Windows platforms. Focussed entirely on the printed page it is above all a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get visual system. The philosophy of Music Publisher is that it is simply a replacement for pencil and paper. If you want a particular effect on your score which "breaks" the rules of music then Music Publisher will not argue! Above all it produces the notation you want to see and does not impose its own rules.
Of course, it can't play the music.

So use it instead...  Of course you won't 'cos NOBODY has a UI as good as NWC, and I don't blame you for that preference in the least - I have the same preference.

BTW, you must be looking at an old version or something - when I looked it up on the net the specs say "MIDI output" so I assume that it actually can play back - I may have a closer look at it, I don't recall having done so before.  Do you know how much it is?  Don't worry, I looked it up - \$199.00 USD - 5 times the price of NWC...

You commented earlier about the production of a pamphlet relating to the uses of layering - so produce one!  Many of the rest of us have done similar things in one way or another...

<sigh>

Do you realise how very frustrating it is when we respond to a difficulty you've been having with workable solutions only to be either ignored, told that the solution is inadequate and/or berated for not also insisting that NWC immediately "fix" something that doesn't concur with your personal preferences!

<'nother sigh>

I mentioned in another post about expecting a Rolls Royce for a Trabant price...  I also mentioned about different written music having different regional dialects...  I'm still waiting for a response RE the orchestral bracket finial you wanted on the bottom of the lower grand staff in an example you gave (this is the second time I've specifically asked for a response)...  Seems you ignore lotsa comments you have no putdown for...

Thus I understand Rick's "buzz off" comment - personally I would prefer you to get off your "high horse" and actually join this community - you generally have quite reasonable observations and suggestions - it's just your offensive delivery that's become wearing.  You aren't always right - no different to the rest of us, so WHY do you have to insist you are right - which you do most strongly when you're most demostrably wrong!  Other peoples opinions are at least as worthy as your own.

/rant

<edit> I have just reread this post and it appears I have allowed some of my frustration to show.  I apologise for getting personal - I have no desire to start or take part in anything that even resembles a "flame war".  Please accept my humblest apologies if I have offended you.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - 'n I'm lernin' tubies now too

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #39 – 2007-10-02 07:22 am
Quote
Music Publisher is a professional quality music notation system

I don't want to rant but I noticed an oddity or two so I have to be a gadfly or gadabout or whatever before hitting the sack.

MP6 looks very nice, the screen shots are pretty good.  I like its ability to draw phrase markings over slurs and ties.   Indeed the phrase mark in the 13th or 14th screen shot is very similar to something that was tested out in the private betatest, and is not dissimilar to what I mentioned a day or two ago as something I had put in the wish list at least once.

I'm curious why a pair of slurred stem-up notes has an arching curve slightly above the noteheads, but lower than the top of the stems?  Is that the default behaviour?  If so, I think it's incorrect - absent a two part staff, the slur should go downwards.

Is it correct have a word in a lyric begin before its note?  (See Be Known To Us, the words here, break-ing, but and then.)

The first demo video was nicely done (even if it did put 4 beats in a 3 beat bar).  It looks as if each note requires a couple of keystrokes, instead of one.  Perhaps there's a shortcut, but if not, NWC is less work.  I wonder how European users, who might not use English note names, would know which letter to press to get their notes?  I'm thinking of Si b, etc.  Is there a guide saying which key to press?

How will it generate finials, I wonder?

Nice playback capability.  Oops, doesn't appear to have note chasing, in the demo.  Oh well, no big deal.

Transposing seems straightforward.  Does it give the user a choice between sharp and flat keys (F#/Gb , Db/C#)?

Does it have the capability to detect timing errors such as an extra beat in a bar, or a missing beat?

Does it provide reasonable flexibility in using extended bar lines to connect instrument groups in an orchestra or band score, without using the upper/lower grand staff bracket?

Nice program, yes.  Professional quality?  Perhaps.  Does it do anything that I can't do in NWC?  Maybe one or two things.  Is it easier to use?  Perhaps.  Everything has a learning curve, so it's hard to say.  Is it as flexible?  Well, it won't import midi, but it will scan and it will import bmp images of print music.

Bidderxyzzy, thank you for bringing the program to our attention.  I guess if we see the need to switch to it, some of us will.  We all make choices.  I doubt if I'll make that one, but others might.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #40 – 2007-10-02 09:23 am
@bidderxyzzy,
Will you ever post anything that does not offend any of us?
There are no prizes to be won for being unpleasant. But (it's not a threat, it's more like one of your beloved truths) I can be a whole more unpleasant than you. Trust me.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #41 – 2007-10-02 01:24 pm
Is there a way to kill-file a poster in this forum?

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #42 – 2007-10-02 03:38 pm
Yes there is. This new forum (which has cost a lot of precious time to set up and to hone to near-perfection) has been put in place to replace the old one, by necessity.
There was one user who refused to behave. Repeatedly so.
This forum has the ability to block users. But whatever has been said thus far, I do not think that it is time to resort to such measures yet. There is hope. And I did not inherit (from) many genes carrying optimism.
cheers,
Rob.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #43 – 2007-10-02 03:43 pm
bidderxyzzy, please read Lawrie's recent post - including the apology at the end - very carefully. Until you get to the apology the language is most un-Lawrie-like. If you have gotten under his extremely tolerant skin, imagine what you have done to some of the rest of us with lower flash points. Actually, you don't have to imagine; just read some of the other posts that followed your most recent rant.

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.

It is very revealing to me that you "put up" with MS Word's spelling and grammar checkers. Most of us don't put up with them, we turn them off. Most of us also find workarounds for the problems in NWC, and are thankful for the ability to do that, instead of leaving the problems hanging out there in our scores and just putting up with them. The program definitely could be better; that's what we're here for. Dumping garbage on it doesn't help.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #44 – 2007-10-03 08:54 pm
Greetings, my friends.

Why the vitriol?  Show me where I have been abusive, demeaning, obscene, or even just "snide".  I have previously written at great length just why I cannot use a result based on obscure trickery any more than a mother could use a toy box full of lead painted objects with tiny but powerful magnets loosely glued to them just because its exterior is copasetic.  Besides, both I and the originator of this thread displayed our own fully satisfactory solutions (he using tied quarter notes and I using staff overlay) long before the trickery was posted.  On the other hand, much of the discussion about how written music should be interpreted was very useful, but remember that my opinion is just as valid as yours.  In the end, though, Eric, or the organization he fronts for, must make the final decision.

It also seems that my fear of being thought patronizing lead me to make some of my comments too terse.  "Music Publisher" is a different beast than Music Publisher 5/6, far more different than NW1 and NW2.  My quote was from the Braeburn Software web site and a direct response to what I take to be unfair criticism of NoteWorthy.  It was meant as a sincere suggestion.  As far as Microsoft Word goes, I do turn off "check spelling and grammar while typing", but things like automatic capitalization after a period, translation of the "th" after a digit to superscripts, conversion of things that look like url's and email addresses to hyperlinks, automatic substitution of fonts and many other things cannot be turned off.  If I were using a word processor only to produce printouts I would use the Windows 98 vintage Corel WordPerfect 7, which gives the user total information and control, but since I must usually distribute my writings as e-mail attachments, I must put up with the effort of undoing much of the automatic formatting done by Microsoft Word.

Finally, while an apology is better than not getting one, it would be best to act so that none is needed.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #45 – 2007-10-03 09:26 pm
I've got Office 2007 here, so the interface is somewhat different. But AFAIK, the translation of the "th" after a digit to superscripts, conversion of things that look like url's and email addresses to hyperlinks, automatic substitution of fonts and many other things CAN be turned off. Look again. It's under Autocorrect somewhere.

But that's not the point. This time, I will not bother to look into your explanation. What is copasetic? I don't care too much. The point is that you are not following the intrinsic (and not intricate) Rules of the Friendlies Forum on the Web. Remember that name, act accordingly, and you cannot go wrong.
An apology is not needed. At the point where you do not yet understand what is going on, it will not be sincere.
Beyond that point, no one will ask for it anymore.
cheers,
Rob.

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #46 – 2007-10-03 09:38 pm
I have previously written at great length just why I cannot use a result based on obscure trickery any more than a mother could use a toy box full of lead painted objects with tiny but powerful magnets loosely glued to them just because its exterior is copasetic.
Yes, you have. And it boils down to: My consumers are not registered users and cannot use NWC2 files.
Why ask for NWC 1.75 solutions in the [NWC2] General Discussion forum?

2009Aug01 Edit: When the above was written, this topic was posted to a board named: [NWC2] General Discussion
It has since been merged into General Discussion.
Registered user since 1996

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #47 – 2007-10-03 11:04 pm
Why the vitriol?

<sigh> you didn't understand one word did you...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - 'n I'm lernin' tubies now too

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #48 – 2007-10-04 02:54 am
Sigh, neither do you.  It has nothing to do with what rev my customers are using, but rather that they are real people using what I produce for a real purpose.  I could find a dozen places in this forum where some of you glory in being snide, or threaten fire and brimstone if…  but what's the point?

## Re: Timing or Mathmatical Problem

##### Reply #49 – 2007-10-04 12:09 pm
Hey, the hellfire and brimstone was mine.
Seriously, when was the last time you had a good laugh?