Finale AND Dorico (maybe MuseScore, Notion Sibelius, etc. also)

[dankreider]

No, it’s not a workaround. That’s exactly what a bar number change is. It means to explicitly display the number. I guess you say it could be called something slightly different, but it serves the purpose of either displaying the measure number explicitly, or changing the number displayed if desired.

[Michel R E]

You know, I'm not posting pro-Dorico stuff just because I like Dorico better, or think it's a better product, or I'm a shill for their software.

I post things about Dorico because I honestly think MakeMusic could/should learn from what its clients/users NEED and what things their major competitors are doing that COULD pull users away from Finale and encourage them to use different software.

If MakeMusic doesn't do anything major with upgrades and real features, speaking for myself, I will definitely be tempted to switch over to Dorico. I MAY not do it tomorrow, but I can now foresee it happening at some point.

[David Ward]

… … … If MakeMusic doesn't do anything major with upgrades and real features, speaking for myself, I will definitely be tempted to switch over to Dorico. I MAY not do it tomorrow, but I can now foresee it happening at some point.

If I weren't so inconveniently old (80) I'd second this, but I really do hope circumstances never force me to make the switch.

[Michel R E]

David, quite honestly, it took me less than a week to get moderately comfortable with D. Then a few weeks to start getting used to keyboard shortcuts for things. And now I'm on to more complex things, like all the spacing issues with making parts and page turns.

I think that what might appear scary at first with D. is that they use different words for things, and there are a few more "radical" concepts (for example, "flows", which are actually pretty fricken' amazing).

However, I gather that a large part of your own scoring is for operas and very large-scale works of that sort?
I tend to work with more "regular" orchestral forces (concertos, symphonies, then some chamber music), so maybe I have an easier path to learning the new program?

The first work I've chosen to input into D. is a concerto for solo violin and string orchestra. I felt it was a good choice as there is some divisi work in the orchestra part, as well as a number of ossia passages, and the cadenzas were ideally written without time signature (which Finale does not allow without resorting to hidden barlines, and numerous other work-arounds).

Inputting this 20+ minute piece has served me well. I haven't played with Dorico's playback features (like a DAW of sorts I guess?) and have just used its regular "press P to play" function.

[motet]

Since I do large pieces and am generally satisfied with default output rather than fine-tuning minutiae, it sounds like Dorico may be for me. But I spent a long time implementing and perfecting a MIDI-based front end to Speedy entry that is crucial to making entering 3,500-measure operas practical, relegating most keystrokes to the MIDI keyboard rather than having to touch the QWERTY keyboard. I see to recall Dorico announcing a Speedy-like feature--true? I wonder if I could modify my front-end to work with Dorico.

[boldest06]

I use only Finale but I would like this: Condensing

[miker]

You can do it with JW Staff Polyphony. I don’t know if it’s anywhere in the standard plugins.

[Michel R E]

well, news from moi: it took me around a half hour total to figure out how to optimize and implement those choices, into the orchestral parts of my violin concerto.

so around an hour of work to layout parts, including ideal page turns, cues, etc...
that's a LOT faster than I could ever have done it with Finale.

I found that the vast majority of my "bad spacing" issues were due to my over-use of forcing measures on to pages. I'm very much used to how Finale lets you rapidly move measures back and forth page to page.

Dorico does as well, though maybe a TINY bit more tediously... except it's not required. All I had to do was select those spots where I needed my page turns, and the music would respace itself into a more ideal placement (going back from where I was too... so no more going back to the first page to make sure things are STILL in the right spot).

In other words, D. works very much like the Perfect Layout plugin does, except natively and on the fly. just enter notes, articulations, slurs, text indications, etc... and let D. space them. Then go over things to see if you like the layout, and only then change the few things you might want to.

While D. does a LOT of things the way it wants to (ie: according to very standard rules of engraving) it DOES let you move things around if you aren't happy with that spacing/placement.

[Michel R E]

You can do it with JW Staff Polyphony. I don’t know if it’s anywhere in the standard plugins.

except Dorico does it natively, and without affecting parts you might want to extract. this "condensing" function (which I haven't had the pleasure of trying yet) affects the full score only. and it can be done and undone. it's one of those things you usually wait until all music and other elements have been introduced into your score.

[boldest06]

You can do it with JW Staff Polyphony. I don’t know if it’s anywhere in the standard plugins.

I know and use it.
(I have known from you, thanks.)

Take a look at the plugin JW Staff Polyphony, at http://www.finaletips.nu/
Make sure you download the correct version, for your platform and Finale version.

except Dorico does it natively, and without affecting parts you might want to extract. this "condensing" function (which I haven't had the pleasure of trying yet) affects the full score only. and it can be done and undone. it's one of those things you usually wait until all music and other elements have been introduced into your score.

Exact.

[miker]

I have to say, you guys make Dorico really sound exciting. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) Finale does what I need. But I certainly enjoy hearing about it.

[Michel R E]

I have to say, you guys make Dorico really sound exciting. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) Finale does what I need. But I certainly enjoy hearing about it.

honestly, if the good folks at Dorico hadn't had an "end of summer" special on their program, I might never have bought it.
but with the cross-grade, plus that end of summer deal, Dorico cost me VERY little.

I have to admit that I'm actually having a LOT of fun with it, learning the ropes, the ins and outs, and the things that can or cannot be done with it (like Finale, you can pretty much do anything you want... though some things - again, like with Finale - will require some work-around or cheat to accomplish.)

In my particular case there are actually very few thing it cannot do. At least, so far. My music isn't exactly "avant-garde", it's contemporary, but of a more traditional bent. So I rarely, if ever, require particularly complex notation.
It's mostly just being able to use divisi staves, ossias, and... the two things I AM missing with Dorico: cut-away staves, and the ability to name my 1st and 2nd violins as I want them. The former is, I think, a projected eventual feature in Dorico, and the latter supposedly will be arriving with the next upgrade in December.

[Anders Hedelin]

the two things I AM missing with Dorico: cut-away staves, and the ability to name my 1st and 2nd violins as I want them. The former is, I think, a projected eventual feature in Dorico, and the latter supposedly will be arriving with the next upgrade in December.

How impossible are cut-away staves in Dorico? You can't do it at all, at present?

Even in Finale there's a limitation in connection with that, if I recall correctly, that you can't make a brace show on staves starting after the beginning of the system. And of course this wouldn't be possible in Dorico either.

[Michel R E]

as far as I know, and have had confirmed by people at Dorico, cut-away staves is for now impossible in Dorico.
there MIGHT be a way of fudging it graphically, but it's going to be considerably more work than it's worth.

[dankreider]

Yes, cutaway scores are completely impossible unfortunately. Depending on the piece and your workflow, it may be worth it to export it to something like Illustrator and finish the job, but there’s no pretending that you can accomplish it in Dorico.

[Peter Thomsen]

… Even in Finale there's a limitation in connection with that, if I recall correctly, that you can't make a brace show on staves starting after the beginning of the system …

Actually this is possible in Finale.

Generally it is very difficult to find some Finale can not do.
But sometimes it is only possible in Finale via a laborious, time consuming workaround.

[Anders Hedelin]

I use only Finale but I would like this: Condensing

(Please see the example in the previous post.)
This is really impressing, and something I would've liked to use. One question: Most of the contemporary composers I've worked with prefer a score in C. What happens when the score and parts have different accidentals and stem directions? Does the 'uncondensing' in the parts take this into account (spacing for accidentals and adjusting of stem direction)?

Another question: Typically, in 'condensed parts' (two winds on one staff) there's an alternation between dyads in one layer, when the instruments share the same rhythm, and notes in two layers when the rhythm differs. JW Staff Polyphony, mentioned above, has the advantage of letting you chose between simply 'split' from the same layer, or split from different layers. Can Dorico handle both situations in one swoop, or do you have to tell the program which kind of split you want?

[BuonTempi]

What happens when the score and parts have different accidentals and stem directions? Does the 'uncondensing' take this into account (spacing for accidentals and adjusting of stem direction)?

Another question: Typically, in 'condensed parts' (two winds on one staff) there's an alternation between dyads in one layer, when the instruments share the same rhythm, and in two layers when the rhythm differs. Can Dorico handle both situations in one swoop, or do you have to tell the program which kind of split you want?

Regardless of Condensing, parts can have different enharmonic spellings from the score. Manual engraving adjustments (including Show/Hide accidental) can be local to a part or global to all layouts. (You can also create several layouts in different clefs and transpositions from the same staff of the score.) Each layout is one possible 'view' of the music data.

Condensing considers each phrase, and lays out the music accordingly. So unison phrases, homorhythmic phrases, and different rhythms will each be displayed differently, with labels and stem directions as defined in options.

Dorico's design was created with these features in mind. Realistically, tacking these features onto Finale's ageing design would be all but impossible.

[Anders Hedelin]

Condensing considers each phrase, and lays out the music accordingly. So unison phrases, homorhythmic phrases, and different rhythms will each be displayed differently, with labels and stem directions as defined in options.

Thanks for your extensive reply, BuonTempi. I'm not sure that I followed you quite. If I have a two-flute 'condensed' staff in the score, does Dorico automatically split all of it, the homorhythmic and the polyphonic sections, without further ado?

[Michel R E]

Thanks for your extensive reply, BuonTempi. I'm not sure that I followed you quite. If I have a two-flute 'condensed' staff in the score, does Dorico automatically split all of it, the homorhythmic and the polyphonic sections, without further ado?

yes, it does.

[motet]

Most of the contemporary composers I've worked with prefer a score in C.

I know that 12-tone composers in the mid-20th century did this, but I'm surprised that's still the case. Is there are reason other than not having to read transpositions? Or is that a musical skill that's falling by the wayside? There's a big advantage in rehearsal to the conductor seeing exactly what the players are seeing, and I would think enharmonic changes especially would be confusing and waste time.

[BuonTempi]

Thanks for your extensive reply, BuonTempi. I'm not sure that I followed you quite. If I have a two-flute 'condensed' staff in the score, does Dorico automatically split all of it, the homorhythmic and the polyphonic sections, without further ado?

Condensing off:

Condensing on:

There are options for the labelling; whether the unison has two stems, etc, etc. But it's literally an on/off switch.

[David Ward]

Most of the contemporary composers I've worked with prefer a score in C.

I know that 12-tone composers in the mid-20th century did this, but I'm surprised that's still the case. Is there are reason other than not having to read transpositions? Or is that a musical skill that's falling by the wayside? There's a big advantage in rehearsal to the conductor seeing exactly what the players are seeing, and I would think enharmonic changes especially would be confusing and waste time.

My full scores are always transposing. However, here in Scotland, Suart MacRae https://stuartmacrae.com/ definitely prefers to produce his scores in C (I have the full score of his opera Anthropocene beside me just now) and I suspect that most of his students at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland https://www.rcs.ac.uk/ do much the same. It seems to be the current trend, although I avoid it for precisely the reasons you mention.

[Michel R E]

I think the important opinions are from the people who actually perform the music: the conductors.
So ask conductors which they prefer, "in C" or transposed.
I will hazard a guess (based on the conductors I've worked with) that the vast majority will without hesitation say "transposed".

[Anders Hedelin]

Most of the contemporary composers I've worked with prefer a score in C.

I know that 12-tone composers in the mid-20th century did this, but I'm surprised that's still the case. Is there are reason other than not having to read transpositions? Or is that a musical skill that's falling by the wayside? There's a big advantage in rehearsal to the conductor seeing exactly what the players are seeing, and I would think enharmonic changes especially would be confusing and waste time.

I once met an atonal/freetonal, but not exactly dodecaphonic, composer in an opera rehearsal. He was somewhat disappointed with the repetiteur's inability to play from the score - "I've written it in C!" I can assure you, motet, that there was no musical skill fallen by the wayside on his part. His name was Lars Edlund, and I believe his book on modern ear training "Modus Novus" has been used even in the US.
By the way I appreciate your, and David's, arguments for transposing scores. But, as an engraver I just do what the composers want me to do.