Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal) (Read 6491 times) previous topic - next topic

Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Local Repeat Close Barlines have a Repeat Count spinbox.
It would be useful to have an Include in Bar Count checkbox (unchecked by default) that, when checked, would add the repeat count to the barline count.

This would allow them to be used to simulate for Multi-measure rests without resorting to shenanigans like this:
Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:0
|Bar|Style:LocalRepeatOpen|Visibility:Never
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:0z|Opts:Muted|Visibility:Never
|Bar|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:0z|Opts:Muted|Visibility:Never
|Bar|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:0z|Opts:Muted|Visibility:Never
|Bar|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:0z|Opts:Muted|Visibility:Never
|Bar|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:0z|Opts:Muted|Visibility:Never
|Bar|Visibility:Never
|Text|Text:"6"|Font:PageText|Pos:7|Justify:Center|Placement:AtNextNote
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar|Style:LocalRepeatClose|Repeat:6|Visibility:Never
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:0
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:0
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
It helps to display measure numbers to see the affect.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #1 –
G'day Rick,
while I can see the advantage of what you suggest, I personally prefer the method in the attached file.

This is because the way I usually work I have a full score for whatever lineup I'm working with and extract the parts as necessary.  You are probably familiar with it, it's not new.

The attachment was created with Kjeld's MBR user tool which basically does what I used to do by hand.  Boxmark2 required.

By using this method, everything lines up nicely for the full score, but when you extract a part it also looks correct.  This way you don't need to create 2 sets of charts.

To see what I mean, open the file and preview, now hide "staff" and preview again...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
while I can see the advantage of what you suggest, I personally prefer the method in the attached file.
Which is fine for a score but if you just plan to key one part, or for % repeats, my method is simple and logical. And since you are dealing with the same set of objects regardless of #'s of measures, the text used for the mm rest can always be positioned on the rest and remain centered.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
Which is fine for a score but if you just plan to key one part, or for % repeats, my method is simple and logical. And since you are dealing with the same set of objects regardless of #'s of measures, the text used for the mm rest can always be positioned on the rest and remain centered.

Yup, no argument.  However, if you're only doing a single part then accurate playback of multi bar rests isn't an issue is it?   Hmm, perhaps it is if you're also using it to play along to and have, say, a solo break during the rest period...

Otherwise, you're really only interested in appearance aren't you..?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a useful idea but because of the way I work I probably wouldn't have need of it myself...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
if you're only doing a single part then accurate playback of multi bar rests isn't an issue is it?   Hmm, perhaps it is if you're also using it to play along to and have, say, a solo break during the rest period...
No, but keeping the bars accurate makes keying it from a printed source a lot easier.

I think it a logical extension to the local repeat. One ought to be able to include its effect in the bar count.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #5 –
Quote
local repeat. One ought to be able to include its effect in the bar count.


Generally, I'd prefer just to have a functioning multibar rest feature.  Then there'd be no need for these workarounds.

Rick, there's merit to your idea, except it'll give you an incorrect bar count after the local repeat close.   Let's say you have local repeat, one time, from bar 9 to 12.  The following bar is properly 13, but counting the repeated section means that bar is going to be 17.  That wouldn't be a normal presentation, I think.

 

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #6 –
Quote from: David Palmquist –
... it'll give you an incorrect bar count after the local repeat close.
Local repeats are a NoteWorthy invention, i.e. they are not generally found in "standard" notation. So, who is to say what the correct count is? I'd just like to be able to write vamps, mm rests and % repeats in a straightforward manner and have all the measure #'s agree. Often, I don't care if playback is correct.

Folks have been asking for true multi-measure rests for over a decade to no avail.

I'd like to have mm rests use the same set (and number) of objects so I can script a general solution that always gets the text with consistent spacing from the barlines to the text on each side.  The scripted "solutions" I've seen so far don't do this.

I do quite a bit of piccolo transcription for my wife (4 of them for this past band season), and as she says: "If you miss your cue with a piccolo, everyone knows it." 30 - 50 bar rests are not uncommon making the invisible bar method Lawrie suggests unworkable for me. I need accurate bar numbers in the editor to stay in sync with the source. Often, she gets the source material at the rehearsal just before the concert.  I have only one chance to get it right. I wouldn't have the time to do this in anything other than NWC2.

Also, I often use local repeats in my tempo track. It sure would be nice if the measure #'s agreed with the expanded parts.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #7 –
G'day Rick,
Quote from: Rick G. –
<snip>
30 - 50 bar rests are not uncommon making the invisible bar method Lawrie suggests unworkable for me. I need accurate bar numbers in the editor to stay in sync with the source.
<snip>

Umm, forgive my obtuseness but I don't quite follow...

The reason I like the method I mentioned (actually Carl Fritsche introduced it to me - thanks Carl) is because it keeps everything in sync with the rest of the score...  The invisible barlines still consume bar numbers...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
Umm, forgive my obtuseness but I don't quite follow...
The two sentences are unrelated.
Your method becomes unwieldy after about 10 bars.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #9 –
Quote
Local repeats are a NoteWorthy invention, i.e. they are not generally found in "standard" notation. So, who is to say what the correct count is?


Music notation is nothing more than a means of communication.  IMHO, if we expect others to understand what we write, we should follow the conventional style of writing.  In band music, the only type I'm truly familiar with, the bars are counted as I described.  It is "incorrect" then to double or triple count repeated bars, since the person reading your chart expects to see it differently.  In my example, the conductor might call out "take it from bar 10, last time."  He wouldn't refer to that bar as bar 10 the first time and bar 14 the second time.  It simply isn't done in my experience.

To make the rest sit properly between the visible bar lines, I pad it with blank space within the text box, and set it to preserve width.  I find it seems to be best to place it in the second or third hidden bar, but I don't know if that's just a mistaken memory on my part, or just a habit I got into.  Regardless, Lawrie's way (which is essentially the way I do it too) gives you an accurate bar count, always.



Quote
Your method becomes unwieldy after about 10 bars
Not at all.  Lawrie's fonts allow you to change the horizontal size of the MBR symbol, but there's no reason for a 32 bar rest to take up any more space than a 2 bar rest.  Generally I make the longer rests a little wider just to aid the musician reading the part, but that's a preference, not a must.

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #10 –
Of course, printed bar numbers should make some sense.

Going back to my original example, I'd just like to get rid of all the extra barlines. A few dozen of them look pretty weird in the editor.

Forget I mentioned it. I'll go back to hanging my own bar #'s on a dummy staff rather than confuse others.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Local Repeat Close (include bar in count proposal)

Reply #11 –
G'day David,
actually, I think you and Rick are talking at crossed purposes a bit...

By allowing the hidden local repeat to consume multiple bar numbers so that an MBR plays back right, and looks right from the textual representation then automatically generated barlines will number correctly - they currently don't.

If the local repeat were to be visible then you would be quite correct, but as it would be hidden (Rick didn't actually say it would be but that is a reasonable assumption - it is hidden in his example) then consumption of barline counts is a reasonable ask, but it would of necessity be controllable or on the occasions when someone uses them as visible ones as you have described then confusion would surely reign.

G'day Rick,
Ahh, things become a little clearer...  I think I would put that down to personal preferences as I don't mind having umpty hidden bars of rests as they are quite visible in the editor.  I concede they look strange in the preview if you have multiple staves showing but I don't really see that as a big deal.  The part extraction is always fine.

In any case - a quick pass of Global_Mod with the appropriate command will unhide the hidden bars - just don't save it if you don't want it permanent...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.