Dorico development issue

[MichelRE]

purely an opinion, and one based on a relatively more limited knowledge of the material at hand than most people on this forum here, but..

I think that the Dorico development team's over-reliance on Gould's "Behind bars" is an error.

So far, while I find much of Behind Bars' material to be informative and useful, I have come across a couple of her "proscriptive" comments that contradict many, if not all, of the scores in my library.

For example, her recommendations for string harmonics are ridiculously, overly fussy and clutter the score.

She also almost entirely avoids the use of group brackets and sub-brackets in orchestral scores, contradicting almost every single score I have in my library.

Anyway, I love Dorico, I just wish they wouldn't rely on Gould's book quite as much. Lord knows there are many other sources of information that are as reliable, if not more-so.

[benwiggy]

Gould may be the default, but Dorico does have options for many other standards and conventions, including Far Eastern, Russian and others. Daniel has frequently accommodated a variety of styles, usually in response to examples of published materials.

The important thing is: are you able to configure Dorico to produce the style that you want?

Anyone who has read more than a few scores will know that custom and practice in notation varies across publisher, country, genre, and age. Personally, I'd hope that global communication would facilitate an agreed coalescence of style, with fewer idiosyncracies -- which can only be a good thing for transmitting and comprehending intentions.

[Anders Hedelin]

The important thing is: are you able to configure Dorico to produce the style that you want?

Anyone who has read more than a few scores will know that custom and practice in notation varies across publisher, country, genre, and age. Personally, I'd hope that global communication would facilitate an agreed coalescence of style, with fewer idiosyncracies -- which can only be a good thing for transmitting and comprehending intentions.

I agree. You can't really expect any program to answer to all your personal preferences. In waiting for the 'coalescence of style', you may be content with your own style to be understood rather than being the only universally acknowledged one.

[Fred G. Unn]

Engraving "rules" evolve and adapt over time to suit the needs of performers and conductors. Generally speaking, they evolve in the direction of facilitating sightreading, and consistency is a key factor with this. Gould has quite a few prescriptions that are either regional or anachronistic (like stem direction on middle line) or simply wrong when compared to common usage (like instrument changes). Both of those examples are to the detriment, not benefit, of the sightreader who wants consistency, so it's a bit odd to see them recommended.

"Behind Bars" of course grew out of the Faber house style guide. I think my issue with some of her prescriptions is that she is sometimes presenting house style decisions as engraving rules. After all, the book is called "the definitive guide to music notation." She's obviously very knowledgeable and very experienced as an editor, but when she goes against some of the trends of the last 50 years, I think she wades into house style territory rather than engraving rules as such.

It's a great book, and obviously essential for those of use that geek out over this sort of thing. I would suggest the following 3 are also pretty essential if anyone doesn't already own them, and they present a slightly different take on things:
Read, Gardner. Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice. Taplinger Pub. Co., 1979.
Ross, Ted. The Art of Music Engraving & Processing. Hansen Books, 1970.
Stone, Kurt. Music Notation in the Twentieth Century. W.W. Norton & Co., 1980.

Gould also doesn't really address commercial music at all. There are notation conventions for jazz, film & TV, studio, and musical theater work that she ignores entirely, so it's not really a single comprehensive volume for anyone that runs their own copying business or publishing house. It can't really be an all-in-one solution for the Dorico developers. Unfortunately, many alternative publications that address these genres are fairly terrible. (Jazz font, blech) The best two books IMO for addressing some of these styles have both been long out of print, but are certainly worth looking for on eBay:
Roemer, Clinton. The Art of Music Copying, 2nd ed. Roerick Music, 1985.
Williams, Ken J. Music Preparation: A Guide to Music Copying. Ken J. Williams Publications, 1980.

Obviously the Dorico developers have to pick something as a default, and ease of programming is a factor too. The instrument change options with parts and score that Michel and I were discussing on the Dorico forum the other day is probably a good example. What we were discussing clearly will take way more programming hours than simply seeing that Gould endorses "early" changes and just going with that, regardless of how this is usually encountered in the wild. I've both played on Broadway and worked as a copyist for Emily Grishman (who has supervised copying over 130 Broadway shows) so I know for a fact that "late" instrument changes are the standard in that scene, in spite of what Gould says. (The key change at entry for transposing instruments is really useful for the reader too, to make sure they realize something is different. When subbing on a show for example, you're always looking ahead past the rests to the next entry to make sure there's nothing tricky coming up, so it's easier than you might think to overlook any text indications like an instrument change.)

I would like to see Dorico to continue to improve in these other genres, and I've posted many lengthy "wish list" requests on the forum. I'm sure it's just a matter of where they want to go on their future roadmap, and the programming hours it will take to get there.

[MichelRE]

The thing that "worries" me a bit about Dorico's development team, is how often I read responses on their forums that basically say "this is what Gould says is the correct way to do it."

[John Ruggero]

I agree with you. I too would like to hear different sources being cited and more from actual music rather than just books on music notation.

[Fred G. Unn]

... and more from actual music rather than just books on music notation.

I agree of course, but the problem is you can find examples of almost anything in print. I know I've had to read some absolutely horribly engraved music before. With the notation books at least someone has given some amount of coherent thought to their choices, whether I agree with them or not.

[MichelRE]

the thing is, when Gould says for example that you shouldn't use a bracket for certain instrument groups in an orchestra score, and that the first 10 scores from different publishers I pull out of my library all contradict what she is saying, then there is at least some support for ignoring Gould and going with what can easily be considered an industry standard.

Let's take for example her incredibly fussy and cluttery recommended notation for harmonics. I have yet to see a single score that uses her recommended notation.

[David Ward]

I've always (since my teens in the 1950s) labelled instrument changes twice. Initially at the first available rest with ‘take Cor Anglais’ (or whatever) and then again (without ‘take’) immediately before or at the first playing of the new instrument. I can't remember which orchestral player advised me to do this, but I've followed the advice ever since.

[Anders Hedelin]

... the problem is you can find examples of almost anything in print. I know I've had to read some absolutely horribly engraved music before. With the notation books at least someone has given some amount of coherent thought to their choices, whether I agree with them or not.

My turn to agree. If Dorico would incorporate "all" plausible engraving styles, even just the best ones, it would make the user drown in options. Even more so than with Finale. Gould et al surely must have spent years of research before presenting their version of the story - I doubt that you could expect that from a busy developing team. (Especially not if you want them to outsmart Gould fx.)

On the other hand you should expect developers to listen to "feature requests" from users if they have missed something. From what I've read here, there seems to be a good chance for that with Dorico.