Hello,
Could you add a function of accidentals on tied notes in Modernistyczna options? It should be : accidentals apply only to one note, also tied note.
Now I have to spend many time to correct it in engraver mode. First I have to select notes and turn on accidentals/show. It is very tiring and irritating.
I hope you can understand me and help me solve my problem.
Best,
Marcin
Welcome to the forum, Marcin. Could you clarify exactly what you mean? You want Dorico to show an accidental on each note in the tie chain?
Yes, I want to show an accidentals on each note in the tie chain like in example below:
Thanks for confirming. Iāll make a note of this and we will consider it for future versions.
Thanks. Iām looking forward to solve this issue.
I wouldnāt need a cautionary accidental in all tied notes, but an automatic cautionary accidental (in brackets) for tied notes in the beginning of a system would be very, very useful (at least in the beginning of a page, or at a page turn). (Iām thinking of very long notes that span for systems/pages.)
Iād agree with the utility of showing them over breaks, but ā a tie joins notes of the same pitch. Would a Modernist play a different note without them?
Itās a good question. Iām not sure, but I donāt think so. I actually use Doricoās āModernistā option in a ātraditionalā way: that is, I prefere having accidentals on all notes (except immediate repetitions) to avoid doubts and ambiguities, which could arise in rehearsals.
Iāve been studying the scores of Wozzeck lately, and finding many exceptions to whatever rules you care to derive from them regarding accidentals. Particularly, where redundant accidentals are omitted is irregular. It seems to me what is most clearly readable is always a matter of some editorial judgment. Restating after a system break can be useful (even in traditional scores) in case one is starting there. But where the tones are easy to understand, repetitive accidentals become clutter and make reading harder rather than easier.
Not meaning to criticize the feature request; just adding my recent experience.
Modernist option is available in Dorico from the beginning (or almost from the beginning). Itās very good idea. However, with the notation where accidentals apply only to one note this should also apply to each note in the tie chain. Then the performer does not have to wonder if it is notes under the slur or tied notes. In this way, we avoid many misunderstandings during rehearsals.
This type of notation is best for pieces with no or partially no measures. For a better understanding of this method of notation, I propose to analyze a few scores of Witold Lutoslawski. The analysis of these pieces is also good because they are great compositions 
I am looking for this option, but havenāt found it. Has it been implemented?
I engrave a lot of New Complexity School works. Even there, ties remove the accidental. If you put the accidental in, how can you tell it is not a slur? Although you have evidence of composers using it, it is an ambiguous and therefore confusing notation. Anything ambiguous that slows down recognition is an impediment to the player. Unless you put it in the preface, and all composers I know will tell you the musicians never read the preface. Cautionary one at the start of a system can be a clarifying technique.
Given the default middle and end thicknesses of ties and slurs in Dorico, it isnāt that hard to tell which is which:
First comes the tie, then the slur.
Actually, I had to look very carefully to tell the difference. Had the two not been side by side and specifically called out, I doubt very much I would have known that one was a tie and one was a slur, especially in the context of reading a piece of music in real time.
Totally agree with @bkshepard - to the performer in a hurry, they look identical. To me they look identical.
What is the need for breaking a long established notation convention that everybody understands? The prime directive in engraving is surely clarity. How does this clarify anything better than the normal convention? I canāt see that lack of barlines has anything to do with it, and besides, the OP shows barlines.
Also note what @benwiggy has to say. Who would play this differently?
Iād wouldnāt expect Steinberg to add this as an option to Dorico.
A quote from my first post in this forumā¦
ā¦and an explanation of why that convention is of importance when faithfully reproducing old scores:
I can see that there is some utility in putting accidentals on tied notes, so that on long notes you never āmissā it, when looking vertically. But whether thatās important enough for the additional noise, Iām not sure.
Coincidentally, I was discussing this very point in another place just yesterday.
Iām not convinced of the importance of reproducing old scores verbatim, complete with archaic or unusual conventions that are no longer commonplace. (Particularly as 18th & 19th-century editors were not always sticklers for fidelity to their source material!) Otherwise, you might as well just hand out photocopies. 
Certainly, some notation might convey information which modernizing would lose, but for something like ābackwardsā crotchet rests, as in the linked thread; or augmentation dots over the barline; or things which were just the publisherās own convention (among many others of the period) ā I see absolutely no merit in maintaining the old form in a brand new edition.
If you havenāt already read it, you might enjoy James Grierās book The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice. I picked up a cheap ex-library version a while back. I found some of his thoughts, such as page 41 here, pretty interesting anyway:
Frankly, I get annoyed with the ānotation policeā on this forum who try to discourage other users from reproducing scores which contain notation which is obsolete or non-standard. If the goal is to create a new edition to be played by real musicians, then I would agree that the notation should be updated to conform with modern conventions. However, if the goal is to have virtual instruments perform an old score while preserving its appearance as faithfully as possible, then that is an equally valid use of Dorico. I wish the notation police would keep their opinions about what notation is right or wrong to themselves.
I think there is a difference between ānotation policeā and questioning where in the list of priorities a feature request for something that is a very small niche issue should be.
Folks are always welcome to request a feature, but others should be able to express whether they feel this feature merits an immediate implementation or whether it does, in fact, represent a feature that only affects a very few (and would take a lot of development time) or is something that can easily be done already with a few extra keypresses.
As folks express themselves on these issues, I feel I learn a lot. Some features common to concert music are quite different from those in jazz. Different countries (and periods in history) can approach things quite differently. Itās one thing to tell someone, perhaps a novice, that most engravers do something differently; itās another thing to try to hide something Dorico can do (automatically or with a few extra strokes) with a āyou shouldnāt be able to do that.ā
In most cases here, I think folks try to be as helpful as they can.
