Dorico Pro 2 released

Recommendations concerning notation and publishing software in a non-partisan environment.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1300
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by John Ruggero » 20 Aug 2018, 03:46

D. Spreadbury wrote:
John, I'd love to know by what procedure you would produce that fingering in Finale.


I use keyboard commands for the finger numbers, elisions and brackets and "play" them in with my left hand. The slurs are done with the slur tool and the line with the line tool. I would probably use a couple of guide lines in this case. It would take a very short time to accomplish since it would just be a matter of clicking or drawing every element into place.

Its been a while since I tried Dorico and don't have access to the program now, but I do remember using a pedal mark for the straight line, text boxes for the finger numbers and having to import elisions from a different font. Lining things up was quite involved and I never did get it right. As I said, I am hoping that all of this will be much easier in the latest version of Dorico.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1300
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by John Ruggero » 25 Aug 2018, 02:36

Here is the actual example in Finale:
Finale Example revised 2.jpg
Finale Example revised 2.jpg (43.92 KiB) Viewed 461 times
Last edited by John Ruggero on 03 Sep 2018, 14:41, edited 2 times in total.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1300
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by John Ruggero » 25 Aug 2018, 11:22

The steps in Finale were:
1. Add three guide lines
2. Click in finger numbers, elision and fingering bracket in layer 1, positioning with mouse
3. Click in finger numbers and elisions in layer 2 ditto
4. Draw two slurs and straight line as Smart Shapes
5. Final adjustment of all elements
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

harpsi
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by harpsi » 31 Aug 2018, 21:49

hautbois baryton wrote:
07 Jun 2018, 04:20
Lots (and lots) of talk about scores, but I've yet to see any part samples coming from this product. Anyone using it care to share?
This is a bassoon part I from an edition I worked on recently. In the score two bassoons share on staff so I had to manually split into separate staves. As the house style sheet demanded different sizes for Tempo Text I had to create a parts score (almost all other text have options for Score/Part but not this one).

Edits:

p.2
Moved the composer name
Moved the "Vl. I" in the cue up - there is a setting for distance of cue labels to other items but it does not work yet
p.4
Applied a master page change "Two movements on one page" with two text frames for titling and two music frames and tweaked it so it would fit the music at hand
p.5
Used a frame break to fit 12 systems on the page instead of the 11 that appeared automatically
Moved the cue label up
Moved the text in the ossia up
Positioned the "Da capo al fine"
Positioned the "fine"
Adjusted the positions of rehearsal marks - there are some options for positioning of rehearsal marks but not the ones I needed, to align left side of box with barline

That's all. The cues and the ossia were done with the dedicated tools in Dorico.
bassoonpart.pdf
(201.25 KiB) Downloaded 54 times

Schonbergian
Posts: 164
Joined: 03 Feb 2017, 02:25
Location: Toronto

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by Schonbergian » 31 Aug 2018, 22:26

Very clean, Harpsi. It reminds me of Wiener Urtext scores (in the best possible way)

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1300
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by John Ruggero » 01 Sep 2018, 03:15

It's very nice, Harpsi.

I noticed some minor things that I will mention, on the assumption that it is an example of Dorico defaults, with the exception of the edits you listed.

1. Many of symbolized eighth note appoggiaturas seem a bit far from the principal notes to me. For example in the second movement, the one in m. 7 seems right to me, but the one in m. 11 and many of those thereafter seem too far away.

2. I agree with E. Gould that wedges should be next to the note heads and intersect the staff lines as necessary. First movement ms. 114-115 has them outside the staff lines. Perhaps this was dictated by conformity to the original MS, because I notice that you seem to have followed the original direction of the stems, which is praiseworthy.

3. Most of the tr symbol do not seem centered over the note heads to me. For example, the one in the cue in m. 15 in the first movement is centered, but the ones in ms. 3, 5 , 7 etc. in the second movement look too far to the right to me.
Last edited by John Ruggero on 01 Sep 2018, 14:16, edited 2 times in total.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

harpsi
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by harpsi » 01 Sep 2018, 07:24

Thank you, Schonbergian and John.

Yes John, it is the defaults, but with some altered line weighth settings etc. to conform to the style sheet.

1. The minimum distance for appoggiatura -> rhythmic item is set to 1/2 space in the Engraving settings, and can easily be changed. 3/8 or maybe a bit less might be ideal.

2. Thanks, this is one of the settings I forgot to transfer from my Finale template...! I agree, and I have now changed this in the Engraving settings under "Position of larger articulations in the staff". It is worth to mention that these setting will not affect accents. They stay inside staff regardless of this setting, should one prefer to have them outside. Regarding the stem direction, I cannot remember having flipped any of them. If you can specify where you mean, I can check if the default is overridden or if the praise indeed is on me :)

3. They are actually all aligned the same. This is something that AFAIK cannot be changed in the Engraving settings. The choice is to align with the accidental or the notehead, and it is obviously not centered but left-aligned. Probably it is possible to create a centered :tr in the Playing techniques editor.

Callasmaniac
Posts: 8
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 17:22

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by Callasmaniac » 01 Sep 2018, 11:20

Couple comments from ex-bassonist (also a music copyist):
The part looks very nice. Somehow it seems like all the dynamics are little too much to the right? And if you want to be nice to the players, you should number the repeated bars (like 16-25). Better yet, change the layout to be more in one with the musical phrases - like using 6 bars to a system in 2nd-3rd system (and especially change of system in 46-47 looks bad). Dynamics could be closer to the staff/notes in 57->. The ties look odd, in 68-71 and even worse in 81-82. Some courtesy accidentals could help the rehearsals, like natural in 72 :-) . In II movement, I hate the Sibelius-like triplet number in bar4 - IMHO number should be closer the beam. (BTW, is the b flat really correct in bar 4? I'd play natural in prima vista). Some beam angles look steep to me; that one in bar 23 is quite ugly...But all in all, very nice and CLEAR part!

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1300
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by John Ruggero » 01 Sep 2018, 14:56

harpsi wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 07:24
Regarding the stem direction, I cannot remember having flipped any of them. If you can specify where you mean, I can check if the default is overridden or if the praise indeed is on me
First mov. m. 16 etc.:

Stems down for the middle line note is the current standard practice, except when context dictates otherwise. It is my impression that in the 18th century, it was up stems for the middle line note in many musical circles. So I was assuming that Wesstrom was one of those. If Dorico is doing this as a default, perhaps it is the result of a setting of some kind because there is no apparent contextual reason for the up stems in m. 16. I am assuming that Dorico does not look ahead to m. 30 to change all the previous measures to up stems. If so, it is more intelligent than I thought! However, if I were modernizing the notation, I would use all down stems from 16-33. And why doesn't Dorico make m. 90 up stems, or ms. 137-144 down stems given what happens in the following measures?
harpsi wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 07:24
3. They are actually all aligned the same. This is something that AFAIK cannot be changed in the Engraving settings. The choice is to align with the accidental or the notehead, and it is obviously not centered but left-aligned. Probably it is possible to create a centered in the Playing techniques edito
Aligning an ornament with an accidental sounds very strange to me. In any case, left aligning ornaments is not what I am accustomed to seeing. I see now why the trill in m. 15 of the first movement looks good. The left aligning works fine if the trill is on the stem side, but not on the note side.
Callasmaniac wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 11:20
Somehow it seems like all the dynamics are little too much to the right
I like Dorico's centered positioning of the f's, but not the p's which seem too far to the right to me also. This might be a case where the human mind follows a more complex rule than Dorico.
Callasmaniac wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 11:20
change the layout to be more in one with the musical phrases
Excellent point. It is better to avoid "widow" and "orphan" measures. This is a perfect example of something that requires human intervention and hopefully is very easy in Dorico, as it is in Finale.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

harpsi
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Re: Dorico Pro 2 released

Post by harpsi » 02 Sep 2018, 08:35

Thank you for the feedback Callasmaniac!
Callasmaniac wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 11:20
Somehow it seems like all the dynamics are little too much to the right?
The dynamics position is set to "Align optical center with center of notehead". I will change to "Align with left-hand side of notehead", I think I like that a bit better.
Callasmaniac wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 11:20
And if you want to be nice to the players, you should number the repeated bars (like 16-25). Better yet, change the layout to be more in one with the musical phrases - like using 6 bars to a system in 2nd-3rd system (and especially change of system in 46-47 looks bad).
In this house style maybe I cannot. I will check. In this style of music and context I don't find completely necessary though. It can of course be done in Dorico, but there is still no dedicated option/function for it AFAIK. Never thought very consciously about your second point, but I can see that some of the decisions I make have that logic behind. Good idea that I most certainly give more attention in the future.
Callasmaniac wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 11:20
The ties look odd, in 68-71 and even worse in 81-82.
What don't you like about them? Shape? Endpoints? Placement?
Callasmaniac wrote:
01 Sep 2018, 11:20
In II movement, I hate the Sibelius-like triplet number in bar4 - IMHO number should be closer the beam. (BTW, is the b flat really correct in bar 4? I'd play natural in prima vista). Some beam angles look steep to me; that one in bar 23 is quite ugly...
Dorico does not allow tuplet numbers inside staff. The number can be moved manually.

It should probably be a b natural, thank you! The manuscript has an cautionary accidental for the b flat in the next bar, which might suggest natural b:s on the 32-notes. The last note is now corrected to an a, that was a typo.

The beam angles - actually I always used Patterson beams with some kind of Henle style settings on Finale - so I do have a preference for flatter beams. Never got around to experiment with Dorico's settings here yet. It did'nt disturb me so much.

Post Reply