Dorico…to be or not.

[Magnus Johansson]

[...]
However, it has many capabilities beyond Finale, and I put up with the "help" for the sake of the increased capabilities. For example, the following slurring would have been impossible in Finale:

Scarbo.png

Hello! Did Dorico accept the metrical faults in bars 328 and 332?

[Mr_Incognito]

For me a clear NOT.

Any particular reason?
[/quote]


Plethora.

To start with - who is in the most stable position in the long run? Not I who went for Finale. Those who mastered open source stuff (Lilypond, MusiXTeX, Frescobaldi etc.). Nothing has changed for them, and won't change, unless they decide so. No unwanted "transition", conversion, re-editing. Everything always where left, with output potentially second to none.

Not to mention that they are the most flexible ones when it comes to selection of OS, and hardware.

[John Ruggero]

Hi Magnus. I had to do a lot of finagling to make it adhere to the original notation that's for sure. But that would have been necessary in Finale as well. An augmentation dot for the upper note of the bass octave got partially covered by the natural sign in m . 332. I will need to fix that. Thanks for pointing it out if that's what you were referring to.

[MichelRE]

To start with - who is in the most stable position in the long run? Not I who went for Finale. Those who mastered open source stuff (Lilypond, MusiXTeX, Frescobaldi etc.). Nothing has changed for them, and won't change, unless they decide so. No unwanted "transition", conversion, re-editing. Everything always where left, with output potentially second to none.

I've gone from Dorico 3 to the very latest version, and never had to make any changes to my scores.
So I have NO idea why you're bringing up "transition", "converting", and "re-editing".
Everything is always exactly where I left it.

This seems to demonstrate that you are rather unfamiliar with Dorico.

[Magnus Johansson]

Hi Magnus. I had to do a lot of finagling to make it adhere to the original notation that's for sure. But that would have been necessary in Finale as well. An augmentation dot for the upper note of the bass octave got partially covered by the natural sign in m . 332. I will need to fix that. Thanks for pointing it out if that's what you were referring to.

OK. Yes, you're welcome; that and the too many 64th notes in bar 328.

[John Ruggero]

The final group was easily handled as a tuplet in Dorico, Magnus. I didn't add an editorial tuplet indication because it is not in the first edition, which was presumably intentional. Whether the 32nd rest is a mistake for a 64th rest is an open question. An argument might be made either way. Here is the original:

Scarbo 1s edition.png (118.8 KiB) Viewed 159 times

[Magnus Johansson]

The final group was easily handled as a tuplet in Dorico, Magnus. I didn't add an editorial tuplet indication because it is not in the first edition, which was presumably intentional. Whether the 32nd rest is a mistake for a 64th rest is an open question. An argument might be made either way. Here is the original:

Scarbo 1s edition.png

OK, did you input the 64th notes as triplets and then removed the 3's and hooks? A 64th rest doesn't solve the problem so it is likely Ravel meant triplets, don't you think so?

[John Ruggero]

I'm pretty sure I entered it as a 11:8 tuplet of 64th notes. I think that he either meant that or a 10:8 tuplet of 64th notes (assuming the 32nd rest is an error for a 64th rest). In either case, the beaming suggests a very continuous arpeggio with slight rhythmic delineation of the three beat, and a suppressed downbeat on the next measure. And also the same on the next downbeat.

And I see an error in my engraving. The beam should not be broken into triplets in the LH of m. 329. I will fix that as well.

[OCTO]

Thank you all!

I was hesitating to answer right away, as I wanted to wait and see what several people would say.

Of course, @dspreadbury , it's unfair to comment on software you haven't tested yourself, and looking at someone else's workflow also assumes that the person might not fully know the software themselves.

@John Ruggero 's example is astonishing indeed.  And another Finale user, @MichelRE , thanks, it's good to hear your thoughts and feelings about Dorico.

Yes, I'm a heavy "template" user (meaning I have a setup that is "tuned" to my needs), but I also want to customize the output heavily, so that it becomes almost unrecognizable.  I really appreciate scores that don't give you any clue about what software was used, but where the music itself speaks.

Coming from Finale, I actually enjoy Sibelius quite a bit, especially the speed of copying, pasting, selecting, automating, etc., almost like using Word.  That was very difficult in Finale.  So yes, I hope I'll get Dorico soon and see for myself.  What has kept me from it for so long is simply my deadlines.  I can't afford to learn new software while I'm in the middle of delivering a score.

Any other thoughts on the subject are very welcome further down below...

[MichelRE]

So yes, I hope I'll get Dorico soon and see for myself.  

There's a free trial version, for a number of weeks (I'm not sure, the trial may last a month?)

And if you were a Finale user, there is a very favourable cross-grade price.

When I first got Dorico, I continued composing using Finale, but then re-entering my scores into Dorico, to learn how it worked and get a better grip of how it functioned.
(I never used XML... the one time I tried, it bugged out and removed all the noteheads starting halfway through a three movement piece!
So I actually had the PDF file from Finale on one monitor, and Dorico on the other monitor.)

As far as templates, you can set up anything you want, really, like the minimum distance of text from note elements, or minimum distance between staves, or staff groups. Set the default look of dynamics, or pretty much any other element. And once it's all entered and you have let Dorico do its thing along the way, then you can go into Engrave Mode and adjust all the little things you'd like to your heart's content.

Most users of Dorico, and the manual suggests this as well, recommend using Dorico's Galley View which does no pretty spacing and adjusting, it's just your very core note entry and other elements (slurs, dynamics, text, articulations, etc...)
Then once everything is entered, switch to Note Entry Page View, and you get an idea of how Dorico handled the elements you gave it. And then fine tuning in Engrave mode.

I have to say that I've actually been very comfortable using simply Dorico's Page View to enter notes thus far. The only time I've resorted to Galley View has been when dealing with any condensed staves. (you can't select items from a condensed staff, except in Engrave Mode. But if you need to change a note or the start or stop note of a slur, it has to be done in Galley view for condensed scores.)

Unlike Finale, Dorico works best when you treat each staff as a single instrument: Flute 1, Flute 2, Oboe 1, Oboe 2, and so on. The condensing feature works VERY well, and there is a great deal of freedom to change when and where the condensing occurs, after the fact (for example, you might want the instruments to share stems, or be in different voices, or even not be condensed at all for a certain passage.)