Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Accidentals (Read 4161 times) previous topic - next topic

Accidentals

Despite the fact that my composition has its own key signatures, each note is being displayed with its own sharp, flat or natural.  I've obviously done something silly but can't find anything in HELP that would explain this. Can somebody tell me what I've done wrong?  Is it a feature, an anomaly or a bug?

Many thanks
Alan
 

Re: Accidentals

Reply #1 –
This is one of my favourite things in NWC. You can set a key signature, but (if -for any reason- you want it) you can also write all the accidentals... the same occurs with time signatures... you can set a 4/4 as your time signature, but the software won't force you to write a 4/4, I mean, you could write 5 or 6 or 7 quarter notes in a 4/4 bar...

In your particular case, if you have set a key signature and you still have any unnecesary accidental you can use "Audit Accidentals" command (find it in TOOLS -> AUDIT -> AUDIT ACCIDENTALS) and this will remove any unnecesary accidental.
Since version 2.75a (beta-some-number-I-can't-remember) you can also add bracket signs "( )" to an existing accidental to turn it into a "Courtesy Accidental" using the hotkey "CTRL + ("

Hope it will help you  :))
[...] y el mayor bien es pequeño: que toda la vida es sueño, y los sueños, sueños son.

Re: Accidentals

Reply #2 –
I suppose you simply clicked "tools->force accidentals".
The solution is as Lloyd explained.

Re: Accidentals

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Lloyd –
...Since version 2.75a (beta-some-number-I-can't-remember) you can also add bracket signs "( )" to an existing accidental to turn it into a "Courtesy Accidental" using the hotkey "CTRL + ("

I have refrained from installing this beta version up to now, because ... well, it's beta. But this feature for courtesy accidentals alone would be worth it ... would the gurus here say "go for it, it's production-ready"? - or is there still reason to wait?

H.M.

Re: Accidentals

Reply #4 –
There's the occasional bug discovery (that's what betas are for) and the occasional switch in the way a command you're used to works (that's also what betas are for). And, by its nature, the beta process means changes every week or two that require a new installation with a new beta number. But, yeah, it's "production-ready," if by that you mean ready to use in your daily work. It's just fine for that. I see no reason to delay.

Re: Accidentals

Reply #5 –
Thanks, Lloyd, for your solution to my query and the explanation given by Flurmy. It works perfectly!

Alan

Re: Accidentals

Reply #6 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
I see no reason to delay.
Good to hear (and sorry for opening my "sub-thread" in here) - I think I'd like to ask directly the important question: If I write files with a 2.75a beta, would I have to fear that I cannot read them in the future with another beta or the release? - because that would be ugly ...

H.M.

Re: Accidentals

Reply #7 –
Quote from: hmmueller –
If I write files with a 2.75a beta, would I have to fear that I cannot read them in the future with another beta or the release? - because that would be ugly ...
By past indications, any files created in the current beta version would be able to be opened in a subsequent 2.75a beta version, as well as the next official release. Also, I have been able to open current beta version files with the 2.75 released version (such files are flagged as being created by NWC 2.751). So overall, I agree with Bill and think you should be safe using the beta release for real work. (I am as well)