Skip to main content
Topic: Bizare behaviour (Read 23873 times) previous topic - next topic

Bizare behaviour

My first post for years on the Noteworthy forums but was prompted by the bizarre behaviour of the attach example. Has any of the esteemed experts have an explanation?

Nigel Pendrey

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #1
What seems bizarre to you is the same behaviour as NWC 1.75b.

What would you call normal behaviour?
Registered user since 1996

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #2
Hello Nigel,
I downloaded the example just to see what you were talking about, and I am not sure I follow: I was first asked what program I wanted to use to open the file, (Chose NWC2), and it opened the application properly.  I was not impressed with the content, but the operation of the attachment went fine. What behavior did you encounter exactly?

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #3
Well, you might start with the obvious: whole notes having the same length as half notes (or semi-breves as minims)....

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #4
Hey, Nigel, good eye!  So far as I can recall, you're the first one to have noticed this. 

It has to be caused by the way NWC computes the value of the notes in a chord. 

You can't enter a note of a different value in the chord without changing the stem direction, and I think it counts only the first note value entered in each chord.   Not a glitch, just a way to allow two voices to be written on one staff where they may not have the same rhythm. 

((Even though a whole note has no stem, it is still allowed to have a stem direction.  This becomes evident if you highlight your first chord and then press "-" to shorten it.))


Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #5
If only the first half note was coupled with the whole note it would not be unusual. The second whole note does present a problem. I didn't even look at the music as I listened. I thought you were speaking of the attachment function itself. I understand that if the program allows the first chord,which counts as one half beat, it would have to treat the second in the same way, as it obviously does.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #6
I think it counts only the first note value entered in each chord. 

Noteworthy uses the the shorter duration. Order does not matter. The clip may look funny for two voices, but what if there are 3 or more? One might need this seemingly "bizarre" behaviour.  One of NoteWorthy's more user friendly features is that it does not constantly check the user's work.

If you want the program to look over your shoulder, just put 1 voice on each staff.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #7
I gather that we are all in general agreement the behaviour is unusual on the surface, but is a good thing, provided the user knows to watch for the obvious errors. 

Another excellent but not widely known feature of NWC and NWC2.

A problem with this forum, however.  I just scrolled down to find Nigel's posting so I could open the clip again to see something else I wanted to comment on, and it's not visible on the page.  I can only get back as far as Robin's posting.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #8
David:

  • We appearently agree on this.
  • I just scrolled up to Nigel's post with no difficulty.


bizarre indeed ...

Registered user since 1996

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #9
Well, I can't check out the file in question (because it's a v2...), but here's something else bizarre for you to check out.


Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #11
First, to the immediatly preceeding post, isn't the Chopin just a case of "implied triplets"?  (Or, in this case, sextuplets.)  Or is that what you mean by "Crossed time"?

To the last "This is bizar(r)e", I'm afraid I nether hear nor see anything strange in the NWC-viewer.  Could you explicate?

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #12
First, to the immediatly preceeding post, isn't the Chopin just a case of "implied triplets"?  (Or, in this case, sextuplets.)  Or is that what you mean by "Crossed time"?
Maybe I should have said "overlapping notes".

look again at this:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2772/noname057to.png
Note the marked areas.

------------
Well, I can't check out the file in question (because it's a v2...), but here's something else bizarre for you to check out.
How did you enter the long stems?

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #13
Thank you for kind replies. I am sorry that my example was not musical enough for some; I was simply trying to illustrate in the simplest way possible that it was possible to write incorrectly notated bars. I am not sure that the note stem property is a factor. A further "doodle" attached ( in NW2 ) suggests that Noteworthy, or least Noteworthy2 only considers the value of the shortest note in the group to calculate the value of notes in the bar. The value of notes which are entered as chord against these shorter note do not count to the bar value. I do not remember seeing this behaviour in version 1.75, but I could be mistaken.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #14
How did you enter the long stems?
I didn't.  I think they had been part of a smaller-valued grouping that I augmented using +, and removed one of the tripleted notes [Don't remember for sure - was about a month ago...].
The stems just came out like that, and stayed that way even after copy&pasting to separate staves.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #15
Re Use111's last post:

Ah Ha! I didn't notice the notes which (effectively) overlap the bar-lines.  The only way I can see to do that would be with layering and invisable (or missing?) bar lines, like so.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #16
Re Use111's last post:

Ah Ha! I didn't notice the notes which (effectively) overlap the bar-lines.  The only way I can see to do that would be with layering and invisable (or missing?) bar lines, like so.
I did one in "NWC 1.75" without layering. However, doing it that way affects the MIDI playback of the notes. That means that the two notes on the same beat will be played at the same time, making those notes louder than the other ones.

http://i.domaindlx.com/user222/nwc175oln.nwc

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #17
Yes, and the "louder than usual" effect will occur in my layered example as well.  (Note, the playback can't be right, as I have no idea what the key signature should be -- clearly lots of #s, given tha there is an accidental on a "B"!)  The solution (which only works in the layered case) would be to mute the sixteenth note which is overlain by the quarter note -- thats demi-quavers and crotchets for those across the pond from New York.

Damn, I wish here were a spell-check option on this board!

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #18
I did one in "NWC 1.75" without layering. However, doing it that way affects the MIDI playback of the notes. That means that the two notes on the same beat will be played at the same time, making those notes louder than the other ones.

Which, (if you are doing a score and already have 18 staves or so and don't want to add more) is just what you want to have happen, if say, two trumpets on the same staff play the same note. 

NWC2 usually does what a new user will want by default. IMO, that is what it should do.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #19
But the example at hand (from the image posted by Use111 -- thanks, by the way) is piano music, where the notation is indicating the the note be held while the rest of the 1/16 notes are played.  In that case (as there is only on key per line or space on the staff, ignoring sharps and flats, which wouldn't be invovled here) you do want the shorter note muted.

GIVE ME A SPELLING CORRECTOR -- please????

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #20
But the example at hand [...] is piano music ...

Exactly. So you have at most 3 staves. Easy to use  layers and mute the duplicate notes.  Not so easy if you have to layer each instrument in a score in order to sound notes twice.

I do mostly piano music. For me, it would be great if NoteWorthy noticed that I have 8 staves set to the same midi channel and all set to piano. It could weed out all the duplicates. But this is a bit much to ask of a program that costs < $100USD.

OTOH, you have folks like Tina Buffet who have thousands of hours in orchestral scores, who might not like it if this behaviour changed.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #21
Of course NWC allows the user to enter notation such as the original poster's example, stacking a whole note over a half note twice in a measure of 4/4, or any other "bizarre" combo you can think of.  But try selecting the staff and going to Tools-Audit Bar Lines and see what happens.  NWC should do the best it can to make sense of notation that violates the meter and make default choices that aligns notes into 4-beat measures.  The main difference between NWC and programs like Finale or Sibelius is that NWC allows the user much more freedom to notate something that the other programs simply not allow, and so gives the user far more flexibility, IMHO.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #22
Yes, and the "louder than usual" effect will occur in my layered example as well.  (Note, the playback can't be right, as I have no idea what the key signature should be -- clearly lots of #s, given tha there is an accidental on a "B"!)  The solution (which only works in the layered case) would be to mute the sixteenth note which is overlain by the quarter note -- thats demi-quavers and crotchets for those across the pond from New York.
What I meant is that without layering, it is impossible to mute the overlaid notes.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #23
I assumed you did, but other posted seemed less experienced with NWC.  I was just trying to make things clear to everyone.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #24
Milton,
I tried selecting the staff as you suggested, but then "audit bar lines" becomes unavailable. I have never used this function and didn't know what it was about. Anyway, I tried it without selecting the staff and nothing happens.
The way I see it, you can write lots of things that are not correct. You can write a piece all in tied 8th notes if you want, (and you may want to if you are writing for a stringed instrument to show bow direction), but you would only confuse a vocalist with such a mess. This is where your musicianship comes in. I am glad that NWC allows you to do it the way you want. If it is wrong, someone will catch it!

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #25
When I mentioned "selecting" the staff, in NWC this is not done as in a word processor, by dragging the mouse pointer over it to highlight it.  One does this to highlight notes or other items within a staff and then to edit them.  If your score has only one staff, it is always "selected".  If your score has more than one staff, use Page Up or Page Down to navigate to the staff whose properties you want to edit, which shows up as blue, or simply single-click the mouse pointer anywhere in the staff.  Now Tools-Audit Bar Lines should be available. Making an example like yours (in NWC 1.75), now that I actually try it, does nothing to rearrange the notes into 4-beat measures in 4/4 when I click Audit Bar Lines.  Go figure!  As with any sequencer or notation software, there's no substitute for actual musicianship!

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #26
Aaaah! As there was only one staff, I thought that's what you meant! Either way, I still don't understand the function of audit bar lines. If there is more than one staff, it is easy to see where the measures don't line up when the beats per measure are incorrect. I guess I should have a look at it one of these days.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #27
G'day fitzclan,
...I still don't understand the function of audit bar lines...

Its useful for those of us who can't count :)

Only problem is it can make a real mess of things sometimes so don't forget good 'ole <Ctrl-Z>.

I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #28
Going back to the beginning:-

First, if you give the staff an instrument that sounds all the time, like a clarinet, rather than one that sounds mainly when you hit the note, like a piano, you'll see that all the notes sound for their full lengths, whatever they're associated with.

Secondly, when you make a chord of a long and a short note, Noteworthy uses the short note to work out where the NEXT note should come.

Thirdly, bar lines are really an irrelevant feature of "modern" music.  Back in the early days they were not used at all (in 16th/17th Century madrigals as originally scored, for instance).

Fourthly, auditing bar lines is only meaningful when you have a time signature (which, if you don't put one in, is 4/4 by default).  In fact you can put bar lines wherever you want, or simply leave them all out; they have no real effect at all.

MusicJohn, 16/Jun/06

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #29
Hey Lawrie,
I was wondering when you were going to jump in. So I tried a few things just to test the functionality of audit bar lines. Oh yeah, that could do a real number on me. I get confused way too easily. Maybe I'm just a control freak at heart but I don't like things that are automatic. The result never seems to be exactly what I had in mind.  As far as bar lines, they may not be necessary but they add structure and make music easier to read. It's easy enough to get lost as it is. And again John, just because the program allows you to do something, doesn't necessarily make it correct. I find that this is a useful tool when used properly, (ie. the chord with different lenght notes).

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #30
G'day fitzclan,
...Maybe I'm just a control freak at heart but I don't like things that are automatic...

Exactly why I HATE automatic cars.  I'm the driver, not a passenger being pushed around in a perambulator!

[move]:)[/move]
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #31
Quote
bar lines are really an irrelevant feature of "modern" music.  Back in the early days they were not used at all 


Quote
auditing bar lines is only meaningful when you have a time signature (which, if you don't put one in, is 4/4 by default).  In fact you can put bar lines wherever you want, or simply leave them all out; they have no real effect at all.

Well... Music notation is just a written language.  The more standardized it is, the better it is to communicate the composer's intention.  Bar lines may have no effect on playback, but they certainly help the musician who needs to play or sing the written music. 

If the composer wants to communicate the rhythm of the music, that is usually done with conventional notation, which includes bar lines and time signatures.  You can write Strong-Weak-Weak, Strong-Weak-Weak, Strong-Weak-Weak without bar lines if you want, but then you need to accent the strong beat or find some other way to let the musician know it should is to be emphasized.  Even when the score is syncopated or notes are elongated (is that melismatic?), the bar lines serve a purpose as placeholders. 

Does the written language change?  Of course.  But in the meantime, let's be grateful for what NWC can do, and not lose too much sleep if it will do things we personally don't need it to do.

The various automatic audit functions save so very much work, as long as you know their good and bad points.

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #32
Audit Bar Lines is mis-named.  It will never remove or flag a bar line in the wrong place, so how could this be considered an audit?

It acts much more like Automatic Beam than Audit AccidentalsAutomatic Beam will never remove beams, just insert them where it thinks appropriate.

Auto Insert Bar Lines would be more descriptive.  IMO, most of the problem would be solved if its name reflected what it did instead of raising expectations that, some day, it would live up to the name that it has.
Never mind. David has proved me to be incorrect in the next post.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Bizare behaviour

Reply #33
Contrary to your observation, I find AUDIT BAR LINES will remove incorrectly placed bar lines.  Try it:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Key|Signature:Bb,Eb
|Instrument|Patch:71|Trans:0|DynVel:10,30,45,60,75,92,108,127|Pos:8|Wide:Y
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Rest|Dur:8th
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6^
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:2
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:8th
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6^
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Down
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:2
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:8th
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6^
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:5|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:2
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:8th
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:7^
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:7|Opts:Stem=Down
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:6|Opts:Stem=Down
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:b5|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:2^
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:2
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

I think this tool is named appropriately.