I’ve saved up images of a few spacing-related issues that I’ve come across over time. The point is not criticism of the software or anything like that, Dorico is great and if any of these can be useful to your team all the better.
#1: Common behavior with grace notes. Slurs with grace notes most of the time need manual adjustments anyway.
(1)
#2-4: Accidental obstructed due to notes/rests in other voice. With some polyrhythmic combinations, the spacing system is not perfect.
(2) (3)
(4)
#5: Tremolo stem doesn’t take into account the accidental’s placement.
(5)
#6: Spacing doesn’t give more room as to not obstruct the rhythm dot.
(6)
#7: Measure is in 6/8 time. Here the first G on the lower voice is on the first beat (with the tremolo chord), notation-wise it’s correct behavior I think. But no spacing is accounted for the following D and the slur which are squished together.
(7)
#8: Accidental bb obstructed by the preceding flag.
(8)
#9: Commonly happens when writing arpeggios crossing staves for harp parts etc, spacing doesn’t always account for the stems when crossing staves like this.
(9)
#10: Slightly different issue, but I could never solve why these grace notes would not want to move before the repeat barline when the option is set?
(10)
It looks to me like your spacing widths are too narrow - there is too much material on each system. Try widening the spacing overall, or put in manual spacing changes as needed. Reducing the staff height might also work. It’s hard to diagnose the problem without seeing the actual Dorico file in question.
Agreed. I never see these types of collisions and I do polyphonic keyboard writing regularly. This is only happening because your systems are too full and dorico can’t figure out how to accommodate everything. If you check note spacing mode in engrave mode, I suspect every system will be well over 100%. The solution is to have fewer measures per system which you can tweak individually where necessary (if it isn’t happening all the time) or you can set different casting off settings or tweak the default note spacing parameters.
While I agree that these examples exhibit an extremely dense spacing, most probably caused by forcing more material onto a system than commendable, the majority of these screenshots show the results of a known issue: collision checks are performed only with the directly preceding spacing column, and not further. Daniel has mentioned that this is on the backlog.
Both statements are correct. The first one in general, and the second one insofar as most of these examples have something happen in another voice, thus “slicing” the relevant spacing column in two – so for Dorico to be aware of the collision, it would not have to check back multiple beats… but at least one spacing column more.
To be more precise: this explanation applies to examples 2, 3, 4 and 6; with 8 being a variant is caused basically by the same issue, but without the “sliced” column.
For the grace notes before barline question - are there other grace notes at the same position not positioned before the barline? As it stands, you can’t have some grace notes before the barline and others after at the same position.
Thanks Lillie, I think that was the reason. There are rare cases where one might need grace notes both before and after a single barline on different instruments sometimes, it’s not certain to me why it’s not possible.
Thanks for all the answers, I’ll look into adjusting note spacing. 3 3/4 to 4 is what is being used in these screenshots (most of them are in galley mode).
Another spacing issue, or maybe I just don’t understand yet how to fix it. There is too much horizontal offset between notes here in two different voices. Without any compression, in Engrave view Dorico 4 is prioritising keeping the dot for G in the upper voice close together as well as, I suspect keeping space for an accidental next to F in the lower voice:
It is easier to read if the natural for F could go on the left of the G. , but I now want to close up the F in the right hand of the piano to be much closer to the corresponding note in the left hand of this piano part. Is this possible?
I have found a way, but it seems arcane and thus this turns into a request for the layout below to become the Dorico default in this case.
What I was missing is that the note spacing dialogue only creates a square for the displaced extra voice when you click on the square above the main beat - until you start some trial and error the interface looks like this (after making both the note position and dot spacing adjustments I wanted):
Note Spacing mode (within Engrave mode) allows for this sort of thing to be achieved manually.
Go into Engrave mode, then click the Note Spacing button in the left edge. You’ll need to grab the square handle immediately to the left of the G in order to reveal the handle to the left of the F. Click that.
Dorico doesn’t cater for this sort of thing automatically. Note that modern style guides advise against it, as it’s potentially ambiguous to which note the dot applies (and for this reason I suspect it’s unlikely that this will ever become the Dorico default).
Thanks. I still think it’s more readable the way we both created, partly because this rhythmic combination is repeated, without the clash of the accidental, in many other bars, and also there are some 2 against 3 quavers (good old Faure!)
The easiest way to fix this is to select them both and use Edit > Notations > Voices > Swap Voice Order, which will put the lower note on the left hand side of the dotted one.
I agree with all the comments that a note should never be separated from its dot.
Engraving Options does have a spacing value for the distance between the dot and the lower note. Reducing this may improve the original appearance, which is quite normal.
A footnote perhaps - this last is the most elegant and readable solution, but a modern Peters edition that I am basing my arrangement on splits the note and its rhythm dot every time this clash happens. I am pleased to have learnt how to do this either way. I wonder where in the manual this kind of functionality is described?
(3) 
