Talk:NoteWorthy Composer

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

OK. So how exactly do I go about capitalising the word 'composer' in this article's name? Is it a matter of making a duplicate article with the capital C and then redirecting this one to it? Modular 21:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. Never mind. Modular 16:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this to NoteWorthy Composer--the official name of the software uses the camelcaps. Kurt Weber 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vouch that this program deserves an article. With regards to "sources or evidence of significance" I think the enormous archive of music and the community of users at Noteworthy Scriptorium (see the external links section) should count for something. It is also the format used by the popular hymn reference site Cyberhymnal.org. (Perhaps as a result) it seems to have found popularity (at least in years past) in Christian music circles as a low cost scorewriter.--Dbolton 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Noteworthy Composer on and off since at least 1997. It has consistently been one of the best valued midi sequencers out there. It is tremendously versatile and does not have the high price tag of similarly functional software such as Cakewalk. Newtman 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is very notable, on the account of being NOTABLY unpricy. Nousernamesleft 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading on some forum that the .nwc file type was basically a MIDI file with some extra formatting. No resources to pursue this at the moment... __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 years later: This is not so, and was never so. NWC (and NWCTXT) are genuine (proprietory) score description formats. --User:Haraldmmueller 18:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent versions of NWC Viewer work on wine on MacOS X 10.5 (Leopard) on Intel.

Harmony Assistant by Myriad Software can import many NWC files, and is available for MacOS X as well as Windows.

(both of the above by personal experience, although a little searching will find discussion of the former and at least the claim of the latter)

Rlhamil (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes that I wanted to explain a bit of

• I went back in to the comparison to the "WYSIWYG" editors. I've never used NWC, but there was a standing flag on that portion of the article. It seems to me that NWC's main "editor view" behaves the same as Galley View in Finale/Sibelius/Dorico
• I also took out the sentence explaining that it uniquely allows the rendering of custom key signatures. F/S/D all do this.
• The Mention of its use on Hymnary.org contains a citation that has no mention of its use of NWC files. If you go into the listing of an individual hymn, you can find an NWC file on most of the pages I tried, a better citation would be good. I checked Hymnary's official blog for any reference to this around 2015 (when it was accessed according to this citation) and found none. If no citation is found being more explicit about its use of NWC files, would it be more appropriate to remove that citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehler (talk • contribs) 01:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]