I need to have a beamed passage with tremolos. When I select and beam together the tremolos are removed.
Since individual notes of a grouping can be “tremolo’d” or two notes can be joined in a tremolo, it would be helpful to have an image of what you are trying to achieve.
It’s because you’re a new poster, so your privileges are temporarily limited. As you interact on the forum, they’ll open up pretty quickly.
I don’t think it’s possible (yet) to join different pairs of multinote tremolos in Dorico — not sure I ever saw this before either…
I can reproduce the OP’s situation. I agree, Marc, that Dorico does not appear designed to do what @derekjohnsoncomposer is after.
I don’t see any mention of this formatting in Gould p. 225 passim. I think it’s safe to say it’s not standard.
Mighty not be standard but it’s way easier to read!
It’s a matter of being consistent in showing the beat. I understand why it doesn’t work in Dorico - but it certainly would be nice if it did.
I don’t think this is a good idea. The meaning of a beam on a tremolando is different from the meaning of a normal beam, and I don’t think it’s helpful to join the two meanings together.
If these were the only two options, I would prefer to dispense with the ‘rule’ that beams show the beat, instead of dispensing with the ‘rule’ that tremolandos have an isolated beam.
But there are other notation options, which have arisen because the normal one is not suitable for complex rhythmic situations. It would be better to use one of the two options in this picture. The top is perhaps more widely accepted than the bottom, which is taken from a Jonathan Harvey score I engraved a few years back:
In both cases, the number of stems is correct for the rhythm, and so joining beams is fine.
In this particular case, I’d opt for the trill version, as it’s cleaner, and better with the ties. I’ve included the other one for the sake of completeness more than anything else.
Hope that’s useful
When I suggested on OP’s Facebook post that he bring the issue here, I suppose I could’ve been clearer that I meant as a feature request. Whether or not there are cleaner or clearer ways to notate this, it certainly is something a composer could reasonably ask for, and I can’t think of any particular reason why it should be disallowed. I would also like to be able to accomplish this notation, should the need ever arise.
Sending an update. Getting to know this wonderful program better I was able to accomplish my task.
Thanks for the input. Name that tune…
Wow! Have you used different voices (on same voice column index) to accomplish those ‘beamed together’ multinote tremolos?
I ended up using hidden tuplets (2:1 - then colored them white/opaque) and then used text for the tremolo symbol. I lose playback, but maybe there is a way to fix that in Play?
I didn’t think of using multiple voices. I’ll have to give that a try.
If you select the tuplet number and set the properties like this, the tuplet will be actually hidden instead of transparent—slightly more robust when printing/exporting.
Wonderful! Many thanks to @hrnbouma! I was wishing for a “hidden” property for that, and you found it. Thanks!
@MarcLarcher The different voice on the same voice column index worked! Thanks for the tip. A little labor intensive - and, I’m not super happy about the flat tremolo shape, or the weird positioning of the additive dots. But, it does playback correctly.