Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: multiduration chord buglet (Read 14318 times) previous topic - next topic

multiduration chord buglet

Open the attached NWC2 file and hit play.

The minor seconds you hear on each beat (but don't see) are caused by the fact that I entered the 16th notes first, followed by the quarter notes. Since I had entered the accidentals with the sixteenths, and the quarter notes were entered on the same pitches (which already had accidentals connected with them), I didn't bother to add accidentals to the quarters. And the program, being a literalist, went ahead and saved them as notes without accidentals. So you have F#(16th) against F-natural (quarter) on the first beat, and similarly on the remaining three beats. The last beat is particularly interesting. The program gave the quarter note I entered there a sharp, even though I had indicated a natural for the sixteenth. This is because of the way NWC handles chords containing two different durations. The duration of the chord is taken from the shorter note, but the chord spelling begins with the lowest note. In this case, that is the stem-down quarter note - which, since the sixteenth with its natural sign hasn't occured yet, takes its chromatic inflection from the sixteenth-note F# earlier in the measure.

OK. There are two simple ways to handle this. The easier way is to enter the quarter notes with the chromatic spelling you want in the first place, instead of assuming they will take the accidentals already entered for the sixteenths. The cleaner way is to put the sixteenths on one layer and the quarter notes on another, bypassing the multiduration chord problem altogether. Because I'm naturally lazy, I chose the first way in this particular case. But shouldn't the program do this for you? If you've already entered an F#, stem up, shouldn't a stem-down F entered on the same staff at the same pitch level take the sharp as well, unless you specify otherwise? That's what would happen if you were hand-writing the music. It's also what happens when you copy the music to NWCtext and then paste the text into another staff. Why can't it happen here?

I've called it a "buglet," but it's really more of an oversight. Whatever it's called, it would be nice to have it corrected.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #1 –
I had the same problem as you.  It was easy enough to fix when the staff was copied to the clipboard to be copied back, but it is a big hassle while staying in NWC.
Since 1998

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #2 –
If you highlight the chord and press the sharp or natural (7 or 9) then both members get made the same, no matter how many times you toggle the accidental.

'tis one of those quirks I've gotten used too.  I don't know if it is better to fix it or use it...  In reality, how often is a minor second like this likely to be seen?  I never have, but I don't notate all genre's either...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #3 –
To apply different accidentals to chord members at the same position is a user error. Perhaps the User Interface should not allow this.

To merge different pitches into the same notehead is a bug.

BTW, all chords have this problem, not just multiduration chords.
Registered user since 1996

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #4 –
Although I am somewhat reluctant to change this behavior, we will give it a go in the next release.

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
In reality, how often is a minor second like this likely to be seen?  I never have, but I don't notate all genre's either...


Hey Lawrie, I actually study composition at university, and I just thought I'd say that I see a lot of minor seconds in the music we study, especially music that's been written within the last 50 years. But then you start getting into micro-tones and the like as well. Don't get me wrong, I've been using Noteworthy for years and it's great, but it doesn't seem to have much support for a lot of this kind of thing.

Leigh

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #6 –
G'day Leigh,
I take your point, but my question remains...  How often do you see a minor second notated as a chord like this?  E.G. D nat and D# on the same line on the same staff?

Any Maj7th chord has the potential for a minor second between the 7th and the octave but you rarely see it in practice...  Or at least I don't ;)  I would think that the notation would usually be, in the D,D# example, more likely notated as D and Eb or perhaps Cx and D# to avoid any possibility of confusion.

I do agree with you RE microtones, but that's another area I don't have much deliberate exposure to - though being a trombone player I get all kinds of microtones... ;) 

It seems to me that "conventional" notation practices don't allow for microtones very much - 'till there's a recognised standard I somehow don't thing we'll see much support beyond 1/4 and 3/4 sharps and flats...  Be nice for some if NWC supported at least this level...

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

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #7 –
Thanks, Eric, for offering to at least look at this problem.

Rick and Lawrie, I agree that it is highly unusual for two notes with the same pitch name but different chromatic inflections to occur simultaneously, and when it occurs it is probably better to write them enharmonically to avoid the notation problem. But if a composer is thinking analytically instead of practically, you may see it. There's an example in Thelonius Monk's 'Round Midnight, at least in the printed lead-sheet version I have. Toward the end of the first period of the music, in m. 13 (on the words "it really gets bad"), Monk calls for an F7+5-5. That would be F,A,Cb,C#,Eb. If the chord were written out in the music, of course, it would be likely to be written F,A,B,C#,Eb. That would be easier to read, but functionally wrong, and a stickler for detail might prefer the version with two different chromatic inflections of the C.

I suspect examples could be located in the music of Brahms, Richard Strauss, and other highly chromatic late-Romantic composers as well. Curiously enough, I wouldn't expect them in atonal music, no matter how chromatic it gets. That's because, with no tonality, the spelling of a given note becomes less important than its actual pitch class, freeing the composer to spell everything enharmonically. You do still have to pay attention to upward and downward leading tendancies, of course, and use sharps or flats as appropriate to those situations.

All this is pretty much a sidelight. The problem here was that I didn't want different chromatic inflections on the two notes of the chord, the music wasn't written with different chromatic inflections on those two notes, but the program was playing them that way anyway. So Rick is probably right in calling it a bug (unexpected and unwanted behavior). But don't let's get into that again....;-)

Cheers,

Bill

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #8 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
Monk calls for an F7+5-5. That would be F,A,Cb,C#,Eb. If the chord were written out in the music, of course, it would be likely to be written F,A,B,C#,Eb. That would be easier to read, but functionally wrong, and a stickler for detail might prefer the version with two different chromatic inflections of the C.
And if the stickler uses NWC2, he can have it!
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:-3,-1,b1|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:4th|Pos2:#1,b3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
But "stickler" is far too kind a moniker :)
Registered user since 1996

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Rick G.
But "stickler" is far too kind a moniker :)

Yup. Ugly-looking thing, isn't it? And not a chord symbol you want to see, either, if you're cold-reading the piece. But in context, the sound is glorious, and yes, functionally, it really is an F7+5-5.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #10 –
NWC2 Beta 2.25 includes a change to this area. Basically, starting in Beta 2.25, an accidental on either note in this scenario will apply to both notes. It will be available shortly.

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #11 –
Quote from: NoteWorthy Online –
NWC2 Beta 2.25 includes a change to this area.
Confirmed. But now it mishandles:
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Chord|Dur:Half,Slur|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down,Slur=Upward|Dur2:Whole|Pos2:4
|Note|Dur:Half,Slur|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Chord|Dur:Half|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down|Dur2:Whole|Pos2:5
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:-1|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Here the slur start/end should be centered on the notehead.

In a RestChord/splitChord environment, Slur=Upward needs to place slurs as though only the top voice is present while Slur=Downward needs to place slurs as though only the bottom voice is present.
Registered user since 1996

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #13 –
Thanks for the fix to the accidentals problem on shared noteheads, Eric. But Rick is right - the new slurs do act a little strangely in certain situations. Hopefully you will be able to fix these in the next release.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #14 –
John White will be very pleased. In my capacity of "Eagle Ear" corrector, I have found many a case where the stem up note and the stem down note in the same chord did not agree on accidentals.

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #15 –
Oh dear! Such discussion over such a for some obvious bug but for others a delightful feature of NWC which allows you to do what you really want to do....I am not convinced by the argument from the way we write things down. Any self respecting sackbut player would understand the attached, even without the accidentals. It was created in 1.75c, and looks slightly better (but confusing) in 2.25.

I agree that the change is an improvement, for the old behaviour did give rise to some errors in notation, but if the first note in the chord is say a Bb, by reason of the key signature, then when a Bnat is added to it, the Bb should not be changed into a Bnat simply to agree with the newly entered note. NWC should show both a flat and a natural against the note. The conflict may be intentional as in the attached.

So if further work is to be done in this area, will you consider this point, Eric?

Thank you





Stuart Moffatt

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #16 –
The concern here was never about correct vs. incorrect notation. It was about correct notation producing the wrong sound. Two notes sharing the same notehead should also share the same accidental. If the accidentals are different, two noteheads are required. NWC now has it right (thank you very much, Eric).

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #17 –
Hey Stuart,
nice to see you in the forum mate :)

I must say, I prefer the new NWC2 treatment myself.  Leaves much less room for confusion, which is, IMHO, the object of the exercise after all

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

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #18 –
Correction: NWC doesn't have it quite right. Placing a Bb against a Bnat gives you the first measure in the attached example: sounds right, but looks wrong. To achieve the correct appearance (second measure) requires layering.

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #20 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
To achieve the correct appearance (second measure) requires layering.
Not really:
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Chord|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:-2z^,2z^|Opts:Stem=Down,Muted|Visibility:Never
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:n0,2z|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=5|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-2z,b0
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
And if we could get <this> implemented, it would sound right.
Registered user since 1996
 

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #21 –
Interestingly enough, if you delete Rick's hidden whole note grace note and ties (either in NoteWorthy or in a text editor), then we get


Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Chord|Dur:4th|Pos:n0,2z|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=5|Dur2:4th|Pos2:-2z,b0
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Which also seems to work ! Which will save and reload.

Rich.

Re: multiduration chord buglet

Reply #22 –
Nice, Rick. Even nicer, Rich - and it demonstrates that NWC is capable of doing it right. So getting the correct behavior from the get-go should require merely teaching the program to recognize the situations in which it's needed. Until that's done, either this workaround or layering allows us to get scores that look and sound right. A little extra effort, but it's minimal. Maybe correcting it doesn't need to be a high priority.

But I agree with Rick that muted grace notes shouldn't affect MIDI. Like most others here, I use them extensively to control the print output. Usually that means using a separate playback staff. It would be nice to be able to dispense with that.

Cheers,

Bill