Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: NWC Viewer limitation (Read 72911 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #50 –
Oh, I am sorry – too much logic, too little harumph! I see now: - It is the freebie that stings. Well, the logical – umphh, there I go again! - psychological solution would be to charge a price for an improved version of the viewer, say half the price of the full programme for a single license with rebate for multiple ones. Perhaps not the smartest of marketing strategies, but it might set the misgivings of the 39-buck-spenders at rest.

And please be nice about my choristers: – They sing very well, yet struggle to improve all the time. Moreover, in our choir we pay more than 100$ annually per member to cover conductor's fee and cost of note sheets etc., so comments on our money and mouths are misplaced. We did not and do not insist that the NWC viewer should be free, but would rather have an easy-to-handle, low-tech, truly  effective, and - all right - low-cost tool.

Still yours faithfully, Ole
Ole

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #51 –
G'day Ole,
may I refer you to a reply I made several months ago:
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5959.msg39153#msg39153
which you seem to have missed...  At least I didn't see any comment from you about it.

I acknowledge that the ability to restart playback from a specific point in the viewer would be nice, but as stated in my previous reply, there is an option that is still free.

Download the eval for your choristers and save the files you want them to practice from in 1.75 format.  This is a function that is inbuilt in the current release of NWC2.  There is no need for you to change anything except how you save the copies they are to use.

There is no cost to anyone, full control for your choristers if, for instance, they would like to silence all staves but their own etc..

All in all an effective solution.  Who knows, maybe some of them will be so impressed they'll buy a licence themselves.  At least, in the mean time, they have to opportunity to play (pun intended), and they can't save over the file you distribute to them by accident - this is built in to the eval.

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

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #52 –
Ole, let me withdraw this part of my comment
Quote
who can't be bothered to put their money where their mouths are
It was uncalled for.

Quote
thousands of choristers who would sing your praise in loud hosannas
Can't help ask, tongue in cheek, "How large is your group, anyway?"

And finally,
Peace?

David


Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #53 –
Well I'm with Ole on this one. There's really no point in producing a half finished item with obvious missing features.

To be usable it should at least have the features of a cassette recorder with FF and RW and Pause (or more modern point and click substitutes).

An incomplete solution is a bad advertisement. Better not to have it at all.

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #54 –
Att.: Lawrie Pardy
G'day to you too, Sir.
When end of March Bill Denholm introduced the idea of using the Evaluation version I turned it down perhaps a bit too categorically, partly because I had not discovered that NWC2 could export files in 1.75 format – and you very kindly put me right on that one straight away. However, in the next contributions  you and Bill seemed to agree that nevertheless the Viewer ought to be improved, and I liked that better. Yet I downloaded the Eval version just in case, tried it out - and got confirmed my original stand. Why?

First, I have to-day abt. 380 choir-practice-files, of which about 40% are active and another 40% are potentially for re-use. They are the outcome of hundreds of hours of learning by trial and error, especially the latter. Many have been revised over and over again, only to have some fellow chorister come over and say: - You know, that 'd' in measure 63 should have been an 'e'. In short, I am not going to convert the lot into anything. I dont' find it in myself.

Secondly, let me quote the first text that meets the eye when you open the Eval version: ”I understand that this product is provided for the sole purpose of evaluating its capabilities, and that any other use requires the purchase of a license. Buy it now / I accept / Quit!” I did in fact buy a license for myself, and I take it you would not have me break my contract with NWC Inc. – would you!

Thank you, anyway, for your concern.

Att.: David Palmquist
Salamu aleikum!
Our local choir currently counts 46 members, and for the next couple of weeks my wife and I join another group of similar numbers in a Folk High Scool to work with Haydn's Missa Solemnis No 13 using, i.a., NWC practice-files notated and adapted by me. So that is of course not anyway near the ”thousands of choristers” that roused you to mild irony.

Have you noted, however, that among the people who joined in this discussion there are four more who use NWC for chorus training? At a modest average of 50 members per choir that makes 250.

In  my country (Denmark) we have about 700 amateur choirs. When fishing around on the net, I easily catch 10 – 12 choirs that already use NWC for training purposes, and I'll bet you that we would soon double that number with a well-functioning Viewer. However, not to exaggerate I shall include only 10 and the same average: that's 500 - or a total of 750.

Denmark, however, is a very small country. Together our neighbouring countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany have several  thousand amateur choirs, and mind you: I need only an additional 26 choirs of 50 members to pass the 2000 mark. And I have not even crossed the Alps, or the North Sea, or the Channel, or the Atlantic!

So, even if I speak on behalf of but a tiny fraction of choristers in this world, I have really been understating my case – let me adjust and ask you to imagine tens of thousand choristers singing your praise!

Yours, Ole
Ole
 

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #55 –
Thank you, Peter, for your comment (#53). I wish that a lot other people, particularly fellow choristers, would come out in support of the improvements requested.

Allow me just one brief additional argument re the use of the full or evaluation versions of NWC – then I shall really clam up!

It is hard to grasp for young people who have been raised with a computer mouse in their mouths (!?), and probably also for older people who have been able to take command of the computer technology, including the adepts of NWC, how confusing and alienating computers still are to the majority of lay people : Eyes flicker, minds go blank, all normal faculties defect, panic ensues, and sweat pours. It takes patient and kind instruction right from the very basics to make normal people use even quite simple computer functions. This is why the pure simplicity of the NWC Viewer is a distinct quality, one more reason why I don't like the Eval workaround, and also the reason why I have requested only the two absolutely vital improvements, viz. free return and adjustment of speed capabilities.

No more from here – have a nice day and be good! Ole
Ole

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #56 –
Hi, Ole.

You say "I wish that a lot other people, particularly fellow choristers, would come out in support of the improvements requested." but in truth on previous occasions in this Forum many have, including me.  And while I agree that a more amenable Player would be good, I avoid the problem by converting everything into Midi format (and posting it on my Website: http://www.thehoopers.demon.co.uk ), which means that my Choir(s) - three of them, totalling perhaps 400 of various persuasions - can then download them as convenient, and manipulate the volumes and tempos any way they like using any one of the excellent, and usually free, Midi Players out there in Webland.

Regards,

MusicJohn, 22/Jun/07

 

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #57 –
G'day to you too Ole.

You say:

Quote
Allow me just one brief additional argument re the use of the full or evaluation versions of NWC – then I shall really clam up!

It is hard to grasp for young people who have been raised with a computer mouse in their mouths (!?), and probably also for older people who have been able to take command of the computer technology, including the adepts of NWC, how confusing and alienating computers still are to the majority of lay people

I'm happy to say that in our male-voice choir (nearly all retirees) we have been able to overcome the initial aversion to computers that afflicted many of our older members when I first introduced them to NWC back in 2001.  In many cases I had to seek out second-hand computers, set them up with NWPlayer, then spend a few hours teaching the initially reluctant chorister how to use the system.

After the limitations of NWPlayer became a source of irritation we all changed over to the eval version of NWC (mainly to take advantage of the stop/start capabilities).  Out of a total of 90 on our active list, I now have 53 very satisfied users.  50 of these are connected to the internet, so I can distribute each new training aid by email (with a few others by floppy disk to the very timid!).  Ole, nobody had to change anything other than installing the eval program.

(An interesting side issue in passing.   A few of the oldies still refuse to touch a computer.  A few others who have had a bit of musical training in the past, flatly refuse to have anything to do with "synthetic" music generated by a computer even though they may use a computer for other purposes!)

I do not have a bad conscience about using the eval version as we do, because my colleagues are  simply using it as an enhanced "Player" to replace the freebie Player or Viewer and do not use any of its other facilities.  A few (six at the last count) have taken out licenses because they enjoy the program so much.

I can see that I am very lucky that we based our whole training -aid program right from the start on the use of NWC files.  I think "Music John" is quite right in his praise of MIDI training aids, but my relatively untrained friends really appreciate having the notation on the screen with the lyric synchronised, particularly in the early learning phase for each new item.

I have one slight regret - that I can't distribute NWC2 files for playback with the eval_175 program.  I'd dearly love to be able to use hairpins for example.  This is why I strongly support Ole and others in begging for enhancement of NWC Viewer.  With that I could sleep with a really clear conscience, and use the full facilities of the <you-beaut> NWC2!!

Cheers to all,

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #58 –
Musical people are so sympathetic, generous, and warm-hearted that usually they make poor politicians. This is obviously true also of the majority of the contributors to this thread who do their level best to help me overcome ”my” problems with the NWC Viewer, as if I were an old ninny which in fact I may be, but that is not the issue. Gentlemen (why are there no women around?), I suggest that our object should be to change the Viewer, not my ways! Rather than tell NWC Inc. that the complaints are not really serious and can easily be circumvented, why don't you, like good troopers, shoot in the same direction?!

I guess it is because you are people with more talent for music than for politics or soldiering, and thank God for that! Then never mind the d..... Viewer!

Now I better shut up, definitively! Yours ever, Ole
Ole

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #59 –
Ole,
I think your logic is askew. Just because many or even most of those who respond to a thread centering on choral issues doesn't mean that most NWC users are choal [only] musicians. It simply means that they responded to something that interests them. Those who share other interests musically speaking, respond to issues that interest them. I stay away from the technical stuff (programming etc.), because it leaves me cold, but others enjoy that aspect of this tool and can add to the knowledge pool.
While it is nice that NWC can be many things to many people, I would dare to say that it was probably created with the composer in mind, hence the name Noteworthy Composer. Not that it matters, whatever your use it's worth the modest price. The $100.00 annual fee that you collect is not helping the folks at NWC in any fashion. I suppose that the time required to implement the changes that you suggest would certainly cost them money however simple they may seem.
Would it be possible to use some part of the funds you collect to purchase licenses for each member, that way they could do all the things they want, and more. I understand that you are afraid that some might fiddle with the piece being practiced, (not that there's anything wrong with that!), but most choristers I know are pretty good at taking direction. Just a thought!

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #60 –
G'day Fitzclan,
umm, mate, I think you missed a point...  Ole doesn't actually collect that 100 bucks a year - I think he pays it.

Quote from: Ole Baekgaard –
Moreover, in our choir we pay more than 100$ annually per member to cover conductor's fee and cost of note sheets etc. <snip>  We did not and do not insist that the NWC viewer should be free, but would rather have an easy-to-handle, low-tech, truly  effective, and - all right - low-cost tool.

I must admit, I can easily see the advantage of a "pause" and a "start from here" function in the viewer - In fact, I'd love to have a "pause" function in NWC itself!  I get soooo many interruptions that I often find myself listening to repeats of repeats of repeats of repeats... (fades off into distance).

Oops, back again.  Yes, I'd love that pause function in the editor - see no reason why it can't be in both!
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #61 –
Hey Lawrie,
Doesn't matter who collects it, it still doesn't help the NWC peeps.  If they (those who do the singiing), rely that much on the program....well, we pretty much covered that already. I figure if I was in the shoes of the programmer, I wouldn't do it no matter how simple it was, for what I think are obvious reasons. It seemed to me from previous posts that Ole is the music director which would mean that he would probably have some input as to how the money is spent.  I could be wrong. (It's happened once or twice before I think!) 
Pause in NWC? Why not? To the wish list with you! Always a pleasure, mate.

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #62 –
Quote
Fitz:  Pause in NWC? Why not? To the wish list ...

Lawrie: I must admit, I can easily see the advantage of a "pause" and a "start from here" function in the viewer - In fact, I'd love to have a "pause" function in NWC itself! 

I'd like to be able to play "last time only," just to avoid the tedious repeats when I'm playing back as part of my proofreading. 

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #63 –
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5473.0
Quote from: David Palmquist –
I'd like to be able to play "last time only," just to avoid the tedious repeats when I'm playing back as part of my proofreading. 

David

Take a look at my tip here   https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=5473.0
It may help you with this.
Rich.

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #64 –
Thanks, Rich.  Looks like something worth trying out.  Cool.

Too bad you can't put the number of iterations on the master repeat close, eh?  and set it to 0?

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #65 –
Back from two weeks with Haydn's Missa Solemnis No. 13 in B and 55 other straining choristers, I am absolutely convinced: - We need an improved NWC Viewer (free repeat positioning, and free adjustment of tempo), and we need it soon!

Would someone close to NWC Inc. please try and worm out what are his/their intentions and let this forum know.

Yours absolutely, Ole Baekgaard
Ole

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #66 –
Earlier this year, I communicated directly with NWC centre by email, as advised, and received a courteous enough recommendation to plan the coming season of rehearsal in my choir on the basis of the existing NWC Viewer capacities. I have therefore decided to shift to another supplier who is more sensitive to all segments of his market, including choir members and musicians who just want to use his product for rehearsal. Good bye to all who have taken the trouble to read this thread, and in particular to those of you who have considered the issue and taken the trouble to comment upon  it, pro or con. I admire your patience, not only with me, but with NWC too.

Yours departing Ole Baekgaard

P.S. My wife, who has more sense in her little finger than I have got in my 'noodle' (Amadeus), says not to be silly considering that I am quite happy with NWC otherwise. So now I am in a quandary!
Ole

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #67 –
   Hi, Ole Baekgaard.

   I don't understand your problem.

   NWC is fine for entering the notes, but with its Midi output you can use any of a huge variety of Midi Players, most - if not all - which allow you to adjust Tempo and Emphasis as you please (see my Website, http://www.thehoopers.demon.co.uk , but not, I'm sorry to say, the Creation Mass - which will be added in due course - which you can presently find at    http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Sch%C3%B6pfungsmesse_%28Mass_no._13_in_Bb_Major%29_%28Franz_Joseph_Haydn%29 .

   A Player like Session or van Basko - http://www.freesoft411.com/freeware/van-basko%60s-karaoke-player.html - will then do all you want!

   MusicJohn, 21/Sep/07


Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #68 –
No it will not, it will definitely not do all I want!

Van Basco is great, but it is not the answer. The great drawback is: you can't see the notes! I sing in two choirs where *every choir member* can read notes. What we want when rehearsing (some of us simply use a piano) is: the notes, the lyrics where they are supposed to be, the bar numbers, the dynamics (if any present). No midi player can supply this.
The thing is: the Noteworthy Player is nearly there. Just one small step would make it a Really Useful Program!
(thanks Rev. Audrey)
cheers,
Rob.

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #69 –
G'day Rob,
I fully understand your position.  However, how much of a problem is it REALLY to have, say, vanBasco doing the playback and reading from a printed chart?

I know there'd be no note chase and that is really useful but surely it isn't the end of the world?

I'm not suggesting that additional playback controls aren't desireable 'cos they are, but as an interim measure..?

It seems logical to me that improvements in the player would raise the profile of NWC itself, but at what cost in the development of NWC2?  If the extra code could be shared between both products that would be great, minimal diverted effort.

That said, is a modest re-evaluation of the viewers priority perhaps in order?
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #70 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
That said, is a modest re-evaluation of the viewers priority perhaps in order?
The pause functon might be the most important. If the restart could be done without resetting the MIDI environment, other freeware, like MidiOX, or even a HyperText Application might be able to alter volume, pitch and speed.
Registered user since 1996

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #71 –
Lawrie,

You are, as always, understanding and kind.
No, it is not the end of the world. It's just that the viewer's users would benefit so much from a simple change.
Rehearse anywhere you like = make sure the files are somewhere (in gmail, on a site, ...) and use the viewer. But the viewer is not good enough for me. I use a workaround, now - but it's "grey usage" of Noteworthy.

If the change to the viewer is as simple as I think, hardly any precious time will be taken away from the NWC2 development. If not, I will simply not use the viewer - and never advise anyone to do so. Honestly!

The priority of a change is always a function of the real priority and its development time, plus a kludge factor. No need to re-prioritize, I think. NWC2 still rulez!

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #72 –
No hear, no see, no go!

NoteWorthy Composer 2 Viewer Limited!

Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to all of you - Thirty Niners and Freebies alike! Yours, Ole Baekgaard
Ole

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #73 –
For some reason, I've missed the development of this thread - hadn't spotted it until Ole's latest post. (Some of you are probably thinking: maybe that's just as well....)

Two comments. First, Ole, please don't get upset because NWC hasn't replied to your comments in the Wish List or addressed this issue in the forum. This never happens on any feature request. It's obviously a policy decision on Eric's part, and I think it's correct. Though no one knows, most of us suspect this is pretty much a one-man show, and if he spent as much time telling us about what he's going to do next as we would like him to, it would never happen because he wouldn't have any time left for programming. I'd rather be surprised by features that actually appear than see promises of features that never materialize.

Second, Rick is absolutely correct about the pause button, which has been addressed many times before in this forum. It would make both the main program and the viewer much more useable, and since most of the same code could be used for both applications, it would have to be developed only once. Eric, I really think it's time to add this to your immediate to-do list (but I don't expect to find out about it 'til it happens: see previous paragraph).

I will add only that, as a full-time composer, I seem to be somewhat unusual among NWC's users, at least judging from this thread; and I will join Ole in wishing everyone a very merry Christmas and happy new year.

Bill

Re: NWC Viewer limitation

Reply #74 –
You know, you can download the free browser plugin npnwcw32 for use with Mozilla Firefox or Opera. Firefox is a free download and will run on the computer as well as Internet Explorer and doesn't have to be the default browser. But if you copy the npnwcw32.dll into the plugin folder you can open NWC files in the browser window and play them. There is also a position slider where you can start from. You can't select the exact bar(measure) but pretty close, then pause - then back etc. Not perfect but better than starting from the beginning again. And Firefox is a big plus anyway as a browser.