Computer Music Interactif…al Edition 1999 December/cd.iso/pc/PC/Demos/Encore/data1.cab/Exemples/Examples.txt

Text File | 1999-05-01 | 8.9 KB | 177 lines

Some notes regarding the Beethoven Opus 27 example:

The excerpt from the Beethoven sonata included on this disk
was a challenging score to enter. We decided to include it
to show both the possibilities of Encore and the methods for
addressing some tricky situations that can arise.

Several hours of effort went into making this example both
look and sound as beautiful as possible. Still, we realize
that by including such a well known composition we have left
ourselves open for considerable criticism. We hope that you
will enjoy the example as just that - an example - and give
us some patience for being primarily programming engineers
and testers and not musicologists or engravers.

There are a number of aspects in this file that help
illustrate some features in Encore and how to take advantage
of them. To start with, the layout for this score uses staff
size 3 but the entire score has been scaled to 60% to
accommodate the large number of measures and density of note
data that occurs throughout. It should not be surprising
that with such a considerable amount of data on each page
the "follow playback" routine might have trouble -
particularly with slower computers. The simplest method to
improve the follow playback function is to use either "fit
width" or "fit page" in the zoom menu. An alternate but
similar choice is to play the score while using Linear View.
If you choose to use Linear View, you will notice a
third staff used in this score that is hidden while in page
view. There are several reasons this staff was added and
more information about the hidden staff appears later in
this file.

This file was originally created and shipped with version
3.0 of Encore for Windows. Many the new features added
to Encore v3.0, such as the ability to interpret repeats and
endings are quite aptly demonstrated in this file. Also added
to version 3.0 was the ability to interpret both dynamics and
marks when attached to notes. The interpretation of dynamics
is NOT used in the Beethoven example, however, although
you can enable the dynamic interpretation from the dynamics
dialog (double-click on any item in the dynamics palette to
open the dialog). The reason we did not use this feature was
to take advantage of the more subtle ranges of dynamics
available using the Change Velocity command. In particular,
changes to entire ranges of notes using the "change velocities
smoothly from X value to X value" were used to alter the
dynamic range for notes following crescendo or decrescendo
indications. The success of these changes is largely dependent
on the velocity response of the synthesizer and program
used when listening to the score. If you find the velocity
ranges are incorrect for your particular synthesizer, feel
free to experiment with the score on your own to find more
appropriate levels.

The staccato marks and accents that appear in this score are
interpreted by Encore during playback and the default values
for altering duration and increasing the velocity were not
changed.

In some areas of this score groups of notes were selected
and their playback durations were changed in an attempt to
add more feeling to the playback. In the third system, for
instance, the repeated chords were scaled to 80% of their
indicated duration and their velocities slightly lowered to
let the melody played with the right hand stand out a bit
more. On page five the same sort of technique was used to
change the durations for the notes in the both left and
right hands where the indications to play "always legato"
and "always staccato" occur. Again, as in the case of
velocities, the success of these changes is greatly
determined by the characteristics of the synthesizer patch
selected. You won't hear much change on an organ patch.

As mentioned earlier, an entire hidden staff was added to
this score to accomplish two different objectives. The first
is to have the MIDI playback actually "play" the trill. An
extra staff was first added and the extra notes were entered
(after entering any needed rests). Later the staff was
hidden throughout the entire score while determining the
layout needed for printing. Finally, the notes that are
showing in the score (including the grace notes where they
occur) were selected and "muted" using the Note Attributes
dialog. The first of these trills occurs in measures 19 and
20 towards the end of the first page. Another occurs from
measures 144 to 145 on page 4. Nothing out of the ordinary
was done to enter these trills and the extra notes were
entered using the mouse and later scaled using the Change
Velocity dialog. Their addition to the score was certainly
not needed but it added a nice touch that we hope you'll
enjoy.

Before the second reason for the hidden staff is discussed,
a special mention concerning the grace notes that appear
along with the trills in measures 19 and 20 should be made.
These particular grace notes are unique only because they
occur within a beamed group. Although grace note support has
been considerably improved in version 3.0, the nature of
beaming within the program required that a different voice
be used to separate the grace notes and their beam
requirements from the eighth notes and their beam. Voice 4
was used for the grace notes (and this occurrence is the
only time that voice 4 was used in the score). The rests for
voice 4 are hidden but included to assure that spacing
considerations are accounted for.

The second use for the hidden staff occurs at two locations
in the score where an interesting problem arose. In measure
134 a clef change occurred in the first ending for a
section. The repeat for this section, however, returned to a
treble clef and remained with this clef until the second
measure in the second ending. This posed a slight problem
when considering MIDI Playback. Although Encore offers many
powerful functions, the addition of a clef change inside an
ending is not currently supported and notes entered into the
second ending continue to reference the bass clef placed in
the first ending a few measures earlier. The easiest
solution for this particular case was to enter the notes at
the correct staff lines for the score and disregard the
incorrect pitch playback that resulted. To correct the
section for playback, the notes were then muted and the
correct pitches entered into the hidden staff below.

Later on, this situation arose again, only this time the
situation called for a different solution although the
problem at first seemed identical. In measure 149, the first
ending introduces a bass clef. When this section repeats, a
return to the treble clef occurs in measure 114 which
remains in effect through the second ending. In this case,
the placement of a bass clef in measure 149 would result in
all the notes afterward being referenced to that clef until
the next clef change - which doesn't occur until measure
203. While the entire section that follows could have been
muted and entered at the correct pitch using the hidden
staff, a far simpler solution was achieved by using a text
box and entering the bass clef as a text character using the
Anastasia font (A bass clef is the character "? " and the
size to use for staff size 3 is 24 pt). This solution
required only muting one note and the hidden staff was used
to obtain the correct pitch.

These two situations are probably unique. We could have
avoided this example and included something much simpler but
we decided it was better to include a rich example and the
techniques that we used to demonstrate that even difficult
problems frequently have solutions. If, in the process of
entering your own scores, you encounter other problems for
which you cannot find a solution, please feel free to drop
us a line and we'll see if we can help you. We can't promise
that a solution will exist for every problem or that every
suggestion will be perfect but we want to hear from you
anyway. We value your input and assistance to help improve
future versions of the program and to help us decide what
features are most needed.

Other areas in the Beethoven score that illustrate special
techniques include the use of a change in tempo for measures
where a fermata occurs. The tempo towards the end was also
scaled slightly in an attempt to improve the conclusion.

Between measures 138 and 139 and measures 146 and 147 the
Barline Types dialog (Measure menu) was used to select "no
barline". The line tool was then used to draw a barline
manually with a space in the middle to accommodate the words
"cresc. " and "decresc. " respectively.

Between measures 62 and 65 the long slur above the sixteenth
notes is actually two slurs combined. This technique is
discussed in the manual as a method to create a slur with a
more pronounced "flatness" to it's middle section.

That ends the notes for this file. We hope you enjoy both
the example and Encore version 4.0. As always, please send
us your feedback and suggestions for future versions.

Enjoy!