Skip to main content

Topic: PageTxtMaestro.nw (Read 6693 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #50
... with things are obvious to the rest of the world.

Ah - you can be sure that many of these things were not at all obvious, at least for me, when I started writing scores, and even a long time after! (and I am sure there are many things I still don't know, or do more cumbersome than is necessary ...)

My advantage over you might be that I have written at least 500 NWC scores over the last 18 years (I started with NWC in 1999), among them (more recently) some large ones where I had to think about, and learn, many advanced aspects. You wouldn't want to know how many times I have rewritten my templates for these larger scores - it was certainly more than 20 times!

So please, continue to ask: The answers will, hopefully, not only help you, but also be helpful others who search (and sometimes stumble) through these forums ...

H.M.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #51
I started in 1996, so going on 22 years. NWC has changed a LOT in that time, and I've had to learn every change by trial and error. A lot of error. That's computers.

Re templates, BTW: I deal with them by simply not using them. It's not that much work to set up a score from scratch, and every one is slightly different. I HAVE been known to take a string quartet, save it under a new name, and strip all the music out of it....so I've used previous scores as templates. But you don't have to organize a separate set of templates for that, just organize your scores.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #52
Well it is great to hear from such Old timers LOL.  I came to NWC out of desperation because I was trying to use CueBase for scores and 15 years ago they were just awful ( I do not know what they're like today but back then it was strictly an audio program with bare-bones capability for score. I would spend hours trying to get the lyrics to line up with the notes. Eventually in frustration I would print out the lyrics from Word, cut them up into strips, glue them underneath the notes word by word, sometimes syllable by syllable. Yes, it was that bad!)

The abilities of noteworthy composer at that time were such an answer to prayer! I have been told by other composers that if I am serious about my work then I should be switching. Obviously you have chosen not to do that as well and I am curious as to why.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #53
I have been told by other composers that if I am serious about my work then I should be switching.
Well, if they really tell you that then they are not composers. Mind you, I would never say that the way these people do it is in any way wrong - for them. But:

(a) Composing is, "by definition", assembling music by not playing it (e.g. improvising), but by "constructing it". Finding one's own way of construction is as much a part of composing, as is the actual construction of a specific piece of music. Some people draw diagrams; some sketch scores; some use aleatoric means (toss dices) to create a musical plan (a "score") that can then be performed/"played". So your, or my, way of composing is just as serious as any other way.

(b) Moreover, it must be said that historically, the method of writing a score is the standard method of composing. Just because there are now other means (like assembling bought loops on a DAW) does not mean that the standard - and still taught - method for composing is in any way obsolete or "not serious" (even though photography came up, painting never got "not serious"). Anyone who does not see this does not have any idea about the history of music - which, in my humble opinion, means that he/she is not that serious a composer ...

(c) I have watched a few people on youtube who compose e.g. music for video clips: Their setup is typically a keyboard, hooked to a DAW; and they play track after track on this keyboard, with about the final sound. The results that I have heard were all "short-winded", so to speak: The tension would last maybe for 5 seconds, in some very good examples maybe for half a minute - but none of these composers came up with any sort of construction that would span say 5 minutes or longer. Yes, they might repeat their short ideas and then increase volume, "chorus", tempo, instrumentation - but all that are obviously trivial things. If their listeners do not favor more complex patterns and are happy with "fast food music" (even though it might sound pompous), so be it - also many 19th century military marches or 20th century operetta melodies were short-span-attention pieces, which were probably invented directly on the piano and immediately written down. But like that old method, also the "new" DAW method certainly results in a limited variety of musical output - to suggest that this were "more serious" than constructing and writing classical is, definitely, a little childish ...

(d) I even tried to compose directly on a keyboard. But the result is much worse than if I construct a piece by writing it - writing it first as an abstract sketch (maybe with letters, curved lines, arrows, and some notes thrown in), then as a rough score (which many pieces missing, repetitions only indicated), and then, in a process that tries out much and throws much away, iterating towards a finished piece. In the same way that I build furniture - also there, a significant amount of time goes into drawing sketches (views from outside, construction step, sectional views), and only after the whole "abstract plan"is satisfactory, I select the wood and start up my table saw -, also composing starts lng before the first concrete chord is placed in time and relation to other sounds. At least for me.

... getting a little off topic, ain't I (resp. aren't we)?

H.M.
  • Last Edit: 2018-01-17 10:30 pm by hmmueller

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #54
<snip>
I have been told by other composers that if I am serious about my work then I should be switching. Obviously you have chosen not to do that as well and I am curious as to why.
Switching to what I wonder...

I can't possibly call myself a "serious composer" but I am serious about the little things that I do.  To this end I choose the tool that works for me.  Unlike software like Sibelius or Finale, NWC allows me to run my ideas out in a free form way, without the need for setting key signatures, time signatures or bar formats before I can even start.

This is similar to when I improvise on my trombone,  I can just let ideas flow without being too worried about anything else. 

With NWC, once the idea is mapped out I can then get down to worrying about the signatures etc. and tidy things up; adding harmonies, figuring out the best chords and so on.

Certainly NWC has some limitations, but with the advent of the latest versions and the availability of user tools and especially plug-ins those limitations are fast being eliminated.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - gonna lern tubies next

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #55
My blog entry pointed to in another topic (https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=9681.0) explains why I stick with NWC over Finale, Sibelius, MuseScore, or any other notation program.  As for composing by assembling sounds produced on synthesizers, etc., my opinion is the same as hmmueller's - although I do compose partially at the keyboard. When I do that, I write down the music I've created the old-fashioned way, with pencil and manuscript paper, and then enter it into NWC and modify and/or extend it as needed to fit the form I'm trying to create.

The music I write is intended for use by performers to reach their (and my) listeners. That requires standard notation, for the most part. If one is just trying to entertain one's self, one might do it a different way.

edit: Lawrie posted while I was writing. Just want to add here that I agree with him.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #56
Perhaps @NoteWorthy Online will choose to spin this into its own thread, since we stopped talking about PageTxtMaestro some time ago. Since it has become a "why are you (still) using NWC" thread, I thought I would add my own 2 cents.

I too am a long-time user; I bought version 1.50b on a floppy disk back in April 1998 - has it really been almost 20 years?  At that time, there were no low-cost alternatives to NWC, and I was pleased at the quality of music I could create at a fraction of the cost of other programs. At that time I wasn't active in the forums here; I found them around the time version 2.0 came out, but still mostly lurked until the beta period for 2.75 started. Prior to that version, I had been toying with MuseScore, which a fellow choir member told me about. I was originally drawn to it because it allowed better control over some of the things that frustrated me about NWC, namely slurs and a few other elements which were not supported in NWC at that time, like arpeggios, verse numbers and lyric extender lines. Anyway, I've been a software developer for most of my career, and the idea of being able to create plugins that could extend and enhance  NWC really appealed to me. Once 2.75 was underway, MuseScore got pushed to the background, and I only use it for the one or two scores I haven't gotten around to converting to NWC yet.

I use it mainly to support our church choir by creating scores for the music we are learning and singing. In some cases, we have octavos which include keyboard accompaniment, and I find it useful to create vocal-only sheet music to reduce the number of page flips while singing. One area I have not fully explored yet is creating practice scores that people can play on their computers so they can hear their parts and sing along. Most of our choir members use tablets for their music (mostly Android, several iPad, a couple Windows Surface Pro) and I look forward to having a NWC Viewer that runs on non-Windows devices someday.

Thanks for listening, and thanks to everyone here who has offered feedback and support for the things I am trying to do with the program.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #57
We had an earlier thread on this a few years ago.
Since 1998

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #58
We had an earlier thread on this a few years ago.

That was an interesting read. I wonder how many of those users are still here seven years later?

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #59
I wonder how many of those users are still here seven years later?
You needn't wonder. Just click on each of their names and the forum will show when each one last logged in.
Registered user since 1996

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #60
I'm not a composer, just an amateur musician who often needs to notate parts to move them around, change clefs or  and/or transpose them.  I've been using NWC since 1996 and was invited into the beta test group for version 2 back around 2002, IIRC.

At that time I was creating a library for my new rehearsal band, so I was copying out a lot of jazz scores.  NWC had its limitations but still met my needs - I was looking to print working parts, not to publish anything.  NWC was far easier to work with than Finale.  In fairness to Finale, I never really set my mind to learning it because I usually found it meant consulting the less than clear manual for certain tasks that I already knew how to do it in NWC. 

So I've been around a long time and have no aching desire to use any other program.  For a few years I was spending many hours a week notating music, but not so much nowadays.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #61
I'm using NWC since... gosh! 2004.
I choosed it because... it could run also on Win 3.11 that my "music" computer depended upon back then. (You're allowed to read aloud  ;) )
I like to have my scores being readable (I practically forgot how to write by hand because I'm using computers since 1976) so some form of musical editor was in order and NWC was (and still largely is) the easiest to use.
Last but not least: it was (and still is) cheap.
So I forgive it all its various limitation and I keep using it with satisfaction.

Edit: "You're allowed to read aloud  ;)" mistyping. what I meant was: "You're allowed to laught aloud  ;)"
  • Last Edit: 2018-01-21 01:45 pm by Flurmy

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #62
Hi Eric,
would it be possible to update PageTxtMaestro such that a line break directive (E.G. %br%) within the comments section of the File Info Dialogue would be honoured?

This way a multiline text entry could be made with data stored in the Info section.

See discussion:
https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=9696.msg69328
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals 'n youfonymums - gonna lern tubies next

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #63
That was an interesting read. I wonder how many of those users are still here seven years later?

P.S. I finally had time to do some "research". It looks like about 10 out of the 13 posters are still checking in on the forum.

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #64
There is an odd effect in PageTxt.nw.
Take a look a the score here attached using print preview and look at the bottom left corner while browsing the various pages.
It seems that PageTxt.nw is not happy with the "Section close"

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #65
It seems that PageTxt.nw is not happy with the "Section close"
I don't think "Section close" is the problem.
In measure 74, you have:
Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.751,Single)
|User|PageTxt.nw|Pos:1|PgStyle:Title|Text:%Title%|Fnt:PageSmallText|YLoc:Bottom|XLoc:Left|CY:-13
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
I think it should be:
Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.751,Single)
|User|PageTxt.nw|Pos:1|PgStyle:Title|Text:%Title%|Fnt:PageSmallText|YLoc:Bottom|XLoc:Left|CY:-13|PgCtrl:All
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
Registered user since 1996

Re: PageTxtMaestro.nw
Reply #66
I think it should be: (etc.)
Nope!
It should be nothing.
It's a mistyping due to copy and paste ... and to a stupid that didn't see it.
Thank you very much, Rick