Dorico ties my F as I want - but it also ties the D to the whatever D it can find which happens to be eight bars earlier. Ugh.
So instead I am forced to 1) enter the F without a tie 2) enter the F&D half note 3) leave note entry so I can change the selected note 4) arrow back to the F eighth note 5) add the tie 6) forward step twice to get past the half note 7) restart note entry.
I am using pitch before rhythm entry thought the same thing occurs in rhythm before pitch.
Yes: you tell Dorico to tie, so it ties.
You can tell Dorico to exclude a tie to your D by playing the 2-note chord first and then tying the F especially (afterwards).
It’s kind of logical.
Are you saying it’s logical for a notation program to ask you to suddenly enter your notes backwards so it can create ties properly? I think that’s called a workaround.
Select the D and press U. That will cut the tie. What has possibly happened to produce that tie is that T had been pressed while the previous D (8 bars earlier) was selected. The Tie command ties a note to the next note of the same pitch, even if it is not the next note.
You tell Dorico to tie backwards by pressing the key Tbefore entering a chord.
If you do so afterwards, you can specify, which of the chord notes you like to be tied to.
I’m able to reproduce this without the earlier D being selected. I’m not sure if it’s entirely expected behavior or not, but I think Dorico should be able to do better.
Thank you, yes. If I enter a note and asked it to be tied to what I enter next, that tie should really only be to the same pitch in what follows. I see no logic for why Dorico would think other notes following the tie request should also get a tie. The figure I am trying to complete is a very common form of notation in piano writing.`
I thank everyone above for the workarounds. But I already know how to fix the wrong entry. I asking that the wrong entry not occur due to programming choices - in other words a bug.
It’s a perfectly reasonable request. I find the behaviour annoying too.
However, it’s not a bug; just annoying in many cases. In fact, more often than not in my work.
From the manual:
Dorico Pro ties the first note you input after inputting the tie to the previous note of the same pitch in the same voice and staff, even if there are other notes of other pitches between them.
Here is the sort of thing this behaviour easily allows:
That’s like asking the orchestra not play a wrong note that is in the score or part. It’s not a bug if it works as designed. If the design is not what you expect or desire, it’s a difference of opinion or philosophy.
Well, then maybe bug is the wrong word. Poor design would be better.
Are you saying the philosophy is that if I ask for a single note to be tied to multiple notes on the following beat, Dorico intends to add ties to every other note on that following beat which I then have to fix? How is that useful in any sense? If a ‘feature’ requires cleanup almost every time you use it (in a normal manner), how is it a ‘feature’?
But what if you wanted the top ‘A’ to land on the beat and not be anticipated with a grace note. Then that A would get a tie going backwards multiple bars to a previous A.
Let me make something clear - I think this software is great. I’m teaching young songwriters in New York to use it, proselytizing it to music professionals on Broadway and lauding it to anyone who brings up the subject of notation software. I was a Finale user for 25 years, then a Sibelius user for a year or so. I even used some of the early notation software in the previous century (what was Opcode’s notation software called … Overture?)
I lived with the quirks of Finale for a long time but never accepted they were good things. I lived with them because I had to.
If I use the program as designed (ask for a tie as designed) and an error occurs (a tie attached to a note where no tie was requested) - I simply think that’s bad design. Why do you say I’m ‘asking for mind reading’ and not accepting that the design is not doing what it says it will do?
It’s like politics - if you stay quiet about what’s wrong with the system and don’t participate, the system has no chance of improving (though I know these developers are ALWAYS trying to improve things.)
Don’t worry; I certainly agree that it would be more useful to have it the other way around i.e. to have to manually select a note plus the same note 6 bars back in order to tie them; and that tieing during note input should only happen between adjacent notes.
If I had a dollar for the number of times I’ve needed the current behaviour vs the amount of times I’ve had to go back and untie a note… I’d buy us all a drink. (If you were in the land of Oz).
My point was merely that it’s not a bug and it was actively designed this way for a purpose.
I agree. I think Steinberg needs to revisit how ties work in general. I don’t think it’s a bug it is just how they set it up and it’s not good. IMHO, as always.
