A few niggling things - 3rd edition

Some more. The first two are really about repeat bars in many ways

  1. Glissando lines look great. However, if we use them inside a “repeat al fine” and there is no object note after the final gliss, that final gliss cannot be written. (The final repeat bar is not written in the pic as I was testing something and it got deleted, but the same problem arises when both repeat bars are notated).

    I was able to use another voice, and hide it by setting the colour to transparent etc … as a workaround. but it is less than ideal. I assume this is similar to having ties over repeat bars.

  2. Something else about repeat al fine: when ending a piece with such a looped repeat (think of Holst’s Neptune), any part layout that has one or more silent bars at the end of the repeat will show “Tacet al fine” by default, which means the musicians will not know when to go back to the beginning of the repeat. Now, of course, one can simply turn that off, but that feature is a global engraving feature and would therefore not be available for any layout or any flow once turned off.

  3. Still about glissandi, they display and print at a wrong angle when crossing systems.

  4. When instruments are ticked off from flows, they don’t create a Tacet page. If I leave the instrument ticked on, I can then have tacets, but if there the “silent” flow start with an upbeat, or if there are repeats etc … then we see empty multirests and “tacet al fine”.

  5. Selecting notes in engrave mode is at times difficult, especially at lower magnification.

  6. When an instrument change happens in the next measure (which can happen in percussion), like let’s say, you hit the snare drum at the 1st beat of bar 43 and the triangle at bar 44, the default behaviour is to write “To Triangle”. Writing “Triangle” only would be far less confusing for the player.

  7. In writing notes with both 8va and the natural harmonic sign, the 8va sign displaces the harmonic symbol upwards. I think it does this for most techniques symbols, but it is difficult to read. I moved them in engrave mode

That’s it for now. I think I can now match speed with Sibelius on most projects by now. Practice always works! I’ll be even faster with more selection tools and filters, but I’m really thinking in “Dorico” now (except when I type Ctrl-E for dynamics … aaargh! … another couple of weeks should do it)

Bumping this as this (see bars 7-8) is still impossible to adjust in v1.1.10

I have to confess I don’t really know what “correct” looks like. Gould isn’t particularly helpful in this area, only giving one example of a gliss that crosses systems, and it’s quite a small interval.

Sibelius gives a much shorter line after a system break, though I realise this may be wrong, though it’s what I’m used to seeing. Perhaps I want a global setting that forces the end note of the gliss. further to the right, thus making the end segment of the gliss. shallower.

Setting the “Minimum gap between start of system and continuation of line” to 0 in the glissando lines advanced options helps somewhat, as can be seen from the two example below (it works even better without the gliss text. But it could still be better …

You can also set this to a negative value. -1 works pretty well except for very small intervals

Should there be a gliss line showing at all in that bar? Isn’t it obvious that the gliss line goes there?

I think it’s best to think of gliss lines in the same way we think of slurs, and those do continue if the terminal note starts a new system.

Yes, I agree, but with glissando lines there is always the space problem when the last note of the gliss is the first note in a new system. It never looks good.

Gould definitely shows the line after the system break (in her one example).

Dorico allows me to tweak slurs, note spacing, accidental placement, octave lines etc. on a case-by-case basis. I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to ask for the same for glissando, given the existing rules won’t ever work for every gliss.