Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: three requests (Read 12539 times) previous topic - next topic

three requests

Three small requests which I have not seen discussed elsewhere in this forum (although they may well have been....:)

  • Could the "preserve width" box in instrument patch properties be unchecked by default?
  • Could barline numbers be user-changeable?
  • Could the program maintain its position in the score when staves are hidden (or brought out of hiding)?

Instrument patches currently are entered in the program at full width, even though they are always invisible. This creates a big white space in the on-screen score which is disconcerting. I always immediately uncheck the "preserve width" box, but it would be better from my standpoint if it were unchecked by default. Does anyone actually prefer to see that white space there? Is there a purpose for it? If not, can we get rid of it, please?

The barline number issue arose in the piano score I'm currently working on. I have two staves that will be layered together to form the right-hand staff of the final score. One has most of the final composite staff on it; the other has just a few items. For ease in working with the score, I have placed the staff with most of the items on it next to the left-hand staff, which means that the other - call it the "workaround staff" - is the top staff in the score. Hence, it gets the barline numbers. Now I want to beam across a barline. That means eliminating a barline in the workaround staff, which means the barline count from there to the end of the score will show one less than the actual number.

There is an easy workaround for this, of course. Eliminate the barline in the lower of the two staves instead, and do the beaming there. But it would be better from my standpoint (neat freak that I am) to eliminate the barline in the workaround staff and advance the number of the next barline by one to compensate. There would undoubtedly be other uses for this capability, as well.

And finally: does everyone else get as annoyed as I do when I'm working with muted display/print staves and hidden playback staves, I change something in the display that requires a change in the playback, I check the box in the "contents" dialogue to make the playback staves visible, and the program blithely puts me back at the beginning of the score, forcing me to go hunting for the measure I had been working in? Is there a reason for this behavior, or has it simply not been dealt with?

I would love to hear others' opinions on these issues.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: three requests

Reply #1 –
Bill,

The "preserve width" question is new to me, but it sounds very sensible. Today, I stumbled upon "O Hush Thee My Babie" by Sullivan, notated by Joe Roberts. The patches take up a lot of space; I see your point clearly.

Barline numbers: these have been asked for. Maybe not in the way you ask for them now (which sounds very sensible) but more flexibility has been requested before.

The behaviour of the cursor when doing actions like hide/unhide is a nuisance to many. Additions, workarounds and other suggestions have been brought forward. I now have the habit of pressing Ctrl-G first (and make a mental note of the bar number) and only then do I go on to hiding or unhiding. I would dearly love a "Go back to where you were" function which would work without undoing changes.

cheers,
Rob.
 

Re: three requests

Reply #2 –
Thanks for the input, Rob. I deal with the big leap back to the beginning by always turning measure numbers on in my working draft, whether I want them in the final copy or not - which feeds back into my barline number request - and glancing at the measure number before turning on/off hidden staves. Same basic idea as yours. But it would be very nice not to have to do either one....

Re: three requests

Reply #3 –
1) Concur. Add MPC's to the list. There are many songs in the Scripto that would look much better had this been done 10 years ago. IMO, this makes NWC look less than ideal to someone "test driving" the program.

2) Try this:
Quote from: Rick G. "How to a measure number"
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Rest|Dur:Half,Dotted
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-2|Opts:Stem=Up,Beam=End
|Rest|Dur:Half,Dotted
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:0z|Opts:NoLegerLines,Muted|Visibility:Never
|Bar|Visibility:Never
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
IIRC, requesting a change to facilitate a workaround has never resulted in a change. A bit of a fool's errend unless there are better reasons.

3) Concur. adding a staff or explictly homing the cursor are the only things that should home the cursor. Another "fit and finish" issue that experienced users shug off, but must be dealt with by every new user.

Quote from: William Ashworth –
I deal with the big leap back to the beginning by always turning measure numbers on in my working draft
This is another "questionable default". IMO, File->New...-> <Blank Score>, should default to Measure Numbers: Plain . This would, I suspect, correctly fix Paste as New File.  The ultimate fix is to have a "Bar:Beat" ruler in the Editor.
Registered user since 1996

Re: three requests

Reply #4 –
G'day William/Rick,

1) Me too!

2) Very neat Rick.  So long as you don't need something in the 3rd bar...  Of course, you could always tie it if it needed...

3) 'nother "Me too"

4)
Quote
This is another "questionable default". IMO, File->New...-> <Blank Score>, should default to Measure Numbers: Plain . This would, I suspect, correctly fix Paste as New File.  The ultimate fix is to have a "Bar:Beat" ruler in the Editor.

Hmm, a ruler - I like that idea.  In the interim I also concur with the default change for bar numbers, but perhaps it would be better as a user selectable option in |Tools|Options|Editor (tab)|
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: three requests

Reply #5 –
Bill wrote
Quote
Now I want to beam across a barline. That means eliminating a barline in the workaround staff
(top staff),

Quote
which means the barline count from there to the end of the score will show one less than the actual number.

If this is your existing top (workaround) staff:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

I think you could add a new top staff above it, set to layer with next staff, in which all the bar lines show:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Rest|Dur:Half|Visibility:Never
|Rest|Dur:Half|Visibility:Never
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole|Visibility:Never
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole|Visibility:Never
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole|Visibility:Never
|Rest|Dur:Whole|Visibility:Never
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

This will maintain the numbering.  Then in your former top staff, which is now staff 2, you can remove bar lines without disturbing the count:

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Up
|Bar
|Rest|Dur:Whole
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

That aside, I concur with your other two requests, although I don't find them to be too bothersome the way they are.


Re: three requests

Reply #6 –
The bar numbering problem only arises because the staff with missing barlines is the topmost staff in the displayed score. I think:
Quote from: William Ashworth –
the "workaround staff" - is the top staff in the score.
Is a clear statement that he wants it that way.

Quote from: David Palmquist –
I think you could add a new top staff above it, set to layer with next staff, in which all the bar lines show:
Perhaps I missed something subtle, but if your response is: "There no problem if you don't do it the way you want", I think he knows that.

Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
I also concur with the default change for bar numbers, but perhaps it would be better as a user selectable option in |Tools|Options|Editor (tab)|
If you really want it to be a user selectable option then you don't concur. All of the other templates would remain configurable.
Registered user since 1996

Re: three requests

Reply #7 –
G'day Rick,
Quote from: Rick G. –
If you really want it to be a user selectable option then you don't concur. All of the other templates would remain configurable.

Actually, I do concur in that I would definitely like it to be a default.  However, in order for others to have their preference in case they don't agree then an option to change the default on a (semi)permanent basis could be desireable.  Kinda goes back to another discussion we had RE: configurable defaults - forget where it is...

Really just "thinking out loud" so to speak...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: three requests

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
Actually, I do concur in that I would definitely like it to be a default.
That is clearer.
IMO, rather than another editor option, if a file called blank.nwc existed in the Template folder, it would be used for <Blank Score>.
Registered user since 1996

Re: three requests

Reply #9 –
Hi Rick, Lawrie, David, Rob -

Thanks for all the input.

David, your idea of adding a top top staff with nothing but barlines and tempi (and perhaps dynamics) is definitely useful, but I think more in ensemble scores than in a piano score. In ensemble scores it adds a smaller percentage to the size of the file (because there are more staves to begin with) and serves the additional purpose of being available to layer with each part as you produce it, reducing the work load of part preparation considerably. In piano scores the staves are more closely tied together (including beams and slurs across staves), there are fewer of them to begin with, and no parts will be prepared from them: so the extra staff seems sort of superfluous. I may find myself using one, but I haven't yet; it seems better to simply switch existing layered staves for the workaround, which is what I did this afternoon after posting.

Rick and Lawrie, I definitely agree that blank scores should default to measure numbers: plain. A choice in the editor options dialogue might be nice for those who don't like it.

And I love the idea of a ruler....but it seems a long way off.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: three requests

Reply #10 –
Curious, Bill - add to the size of the file?  How many kb? NWC files are much smaller than MUS files (from Finale).  My biggest NWC file is only 44 kb, and that's for 17 staffs and 346 measures.  Adding a staff to a score with only two original ones will increase it by perhaps 50%, but 50% added to a 10kb file is only going to be 15kb. 





Rick,
Quote
Perhaps I missed something subtle,
Yeah, you did.  While Bill made it clear he had a workaround and wasn't looking for another, the one he described seemed a little awkward.  I thought of a different way, tested it, liked the result and offered the suggestion.  I think it's a simpler and easier way to accomplish what Bill wants to do.  No skin off my nose that he's decided it isn't right for him. All I did was share an idea.  I do believe that's what the forum is about - sharing ideas and helping each other.








 

Re: three requests

Reply #11 –
Hi David -

You're right, of course - tiny files are one of the things we all love about NWC. I wasn't suggesting it would make the file awkwardly big on the hard drive. What it does do, though, is make it awkwardly big on the screen. Piano scores, plain, take up two staves and maybe 1/3 of my screen. Add playback staves, you have 2/3 (see my earlier whine about the inability to turn hidden staves on and off without jumping back to the beginning of the score: for this reason, I often leave the playback staves visible). Add a layered staff each for the RH and LH staves, and you've filled the whole screen. Add your suggested top staff with only barlines and tempo changes, and the score now requires scrolling. Probably not a big deal, since you won't be working with that top staff much (if at all), but something in me rebels against creating a piano score - a piano score! - that requires scrolling vertically to see all of it. Call it a personality quirk and condemn it all you like, but I'm stuck with it.

So - great idea, wrong personality to work with it. And I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer in my earlier post re file size. Reading it over, now, I read it the same way you did. Mea culpa.

As far as why we're here - yes, we're here to help each other (thank you), but we're also here to beta-test the next version of NWC. That includes making suggestions for improvements. I appreciate workaround ideas, use them, and have contributed some, but they usually aren't a substitute for improvements to the program. I think part of our task, as beta testers, is to make a case for improvements vs. continued use of workarounds, so sometimes we have to attack the workarounds. It's best if we can do that without attacking either the program or each other. Recent events in other threads have made us all supersensitive to this, and I suspect we're all a bit testy. We'll get through.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: three requests

Reply #12 –
Hi Bill, thank you for your thoughtful reply. We're on the same page in most respects I think. 

I'm lucky to have a flat screen 19" monitor, and sometimes I forget that others have smaller screens or don't use high resolutions.  7 staves display nicely on my screen without adjusting my zoom level or the distance between them.  I can work with 10 visible staves if I have to, although at that zoom level they're a little small for my liking. 

Gotta run.  Band practice.  Thanks for taking the time to write.

David




Re: three requests

Reply #13 –
I work on a Dell laptop with a 14" screen. Considerably better than the old Osbornes (which came with a 3" screen and a magnifying glass, if I remember right) but still not adequate for more than six staves, and that's a stretch. My screen is set at 1400x1050 pixels, which is enough resolution for higher numbers of staves, but they get awfully tiny....

Re: three requests

Reply #14 –
Bill, just curious.  As a laptopper, do you find it best to use the mouse or your onboard keyboard for note entry?  Or do you use an external keyboard?




Re: three requests

Reply #15 –
Hi David -

I have an external keyboard and a trackball attached when the machine is at its usual place on my desk, and I use both - the keyboard for entering notes, rests and barlines, the trackball for almost everything else (including adding accidentals and changing note durations, which I do with the button bar). I usually get to the properties dialogues by right-clicking in an empty space in the score, unless I'm making changes to several items, in which case I use alt-enter and the arrow keys. Same thing with moving between staves: pg up or pg dn if I'm making similar changes to several staves at once, otherwise click with the trackball. I have wondered occasionally if my use of a trackball instead of a mouse is part of what drives my choices in the mouse/keyboard debate, as the trackball is (1) always in the same place, so the hand finds it quickly, and (2) makes fine adjustments more easily than a mouse. Don't know if this actually matters. (I detest touch pads, by the way, so I use the keyboard almost exclusively if I'm working away from my desk.)

Cheers,

Bill

Re: three requests

Reply #16 –
Thanks, Bill.  I was wondering - we use notebooks at work, but most of us use external keyboards.  My n.b. has a touchpad, which I never use, and I think it has a little wobbly button between the g and h keys that can be used as a mouse guide in a pinch.  Again, I never use it.  And of course, I don't notate music on that machine - even if I wanted to, our security policy wouldn't let me instal the program.

Anyway, your trackball usage habit seems about the same as my mouse usage.   At home I use an articulated k.b., do most of my entry on it, and I use the mouse only as an accessory. 

Re: three requests

Reply #17 –
Love the new look.  Especially the tools on the left.  They make life so much easier.

Thanks for the louder/softer (<>) tools, I really needed those.

A couple of requests...

1.  Have the title of the piece print on the top of each page along with the page number (e.g. Name of Piece - 2). 

2.  A way to create the sign for trills (esp. for flutes).  Presently I am using /\/\/\/\ above the notes, but it does not look very professional.

3.  I agree having a way to make the measure numbers user assigned would be helpful.

Keep up the great work.

Stephen Hurt

Re: three requests

Reply #18 –
G'day Stephen,
Quote from: shurt –
<snip>
1.  Have the title of the piece print on the top of each page along with the page number (e.g. Name of Piece - 2). 

It would be very nice to have this option, in the meantime, if you get everything else right, you can then use |Print|Preview| to figure out which bars (measures) appear at the top of each page and use these to orient text entries with the appropriate details.  NWC can put automatic page numbers in but they are rarely, for me anyhow, in a useful position.


Quote
2.  A way to create the sign for trills (esp. for flutes).  Presently I am using /\/\/\/\ above the notes, but it does not look very professional.

While NWC doesn't do this natively you can place these symbols as text.  In NWC you have 6 "User" fonts - accessed in the |Page|Setup|Fonts (tab) dialogue.  Simply set one of them to the typeface and size you want and then use that as the font for a text entry.

To get the symbols, you need to choose a font with 'em in it.  So, the first place to look is on the Scripto 'cos there is an array of useful fonts there:  http://nwc-scriptorium.org will take you to the home page.  http://nwc-scriptorium.org/helpful.html will take you to the where all the "helpful" stuff is, including the fonts.

A very common one is "Boxmark2".  You will notice that I also have some suites up.  The title font in each suite is an extended version of Boxmark2 in different styles.

In all cases, the <h> will give you a "TR~~" symbol, the <i> will give you a "~~" and the <j> will give you a longer "~~~" symbol.  Of course they'll look better that a tilde :)


Quote
3.  I agree having a way to make the measure numbers user assigned would be helpful.

Concur - I would also like control over placement I.E above or below etc.  In the meantime, this can also be worked around with text entries.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: three requests

Reply #19 –
The Boxmark fonts are commonly used in NWC files, as are Lawrie's *Dings fonts, so I recommend that you download them because of other pieces that may use them.  (Especially in the Scripto!)

Re: three requests

Reply #20 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
blank scores should default to measure numbers: plain
I like to reiterate this request. At the very least Paste as New File should default to: Measure Numbers: plain
Registered user since 1996