hello, in this example I try to move the three semiquaver rests a little bit sidewards. I can not seem to get them to an X-offset position. How would be the procedure?
Thank you for help:
It needs a workaround, I’m afraid: try midway down this thread Flow Headings - alignment - Dorico - Steinberg Forums
thanks pianoleo,
it looks like a lot of work-around…
This will not become an edition, it is for a pianist to play in a Liederabend. I’ll leave it this way (thus removing the two unnecessary piano indications)…
ps: from Schubert D.478
If it’s “not for publication” you could just move the rests vertically, like the ones below the bottom staff. Flip the stems of the octave C’s so there is room for the rests underneath.
For the bottom staff start of bar 2, moving the rest up a bit will stop it colliding with the top of the stem.
Can’t you just put the rest into its own “voice column” and then budge it in engrave mode? I moved a few rests earlier today. You don’t even have to move the whole column if you tab down to the round handle instead of the square one.
You can’t put the rest in a voice column, but you can move all the notes out of voice column 0 and presumably leave the rest as the only thing in voice column 0.
However if you try Romanos’s idea you can get into problems with the vertical alignment relative to other staves in the score, and you may have to move the adjacent notes as well to get the spacing to look right.
This idea would probably work better if you could move the notes into “voice column -1” and leave the rest in column 0, but the properties panel won’t let you do that.
There is so much one can do in Engrave Mode, I am sure at one point we will be able to shift rests where it is necessary. At the moment the easiest workaround is probably to hide the rests and input them as glyphs(?)
Surely not. Again, I see no reason why the notes couldn’t be out into a voice column and nudged. Yes there will be “alignment issues” but you have to bend the rules of engraving to make this work. It doesn’t look good the way it is, thus you must change it. It’s ok for individual elements to be out of alignment if it is plainly evident why they are shifted, which in this case they would be.
As I said, put the notes into column 1 and then move things in engrave mode. You can use the round handles if you don’t want to shift the whole column. 60 seconds.
Honestly, I think this notation is a cumbersome way of doing it. You have, for instance, the rest nestled into the octave in the RH part and then you can’t do the same notation in the LH a beat later. Perhaps it is best to just have the rest below the notes as Dorico does by default. That said, what you are desiring is achievable without any weird workarounds. I’d also suggest just making the C in the LH a 16th note and connecting it to the three other 16ths.
Also, I didn’t take the time to do it, but you can adjust the ledgerlines so they don’t connect to the rest automatically by clicking on the notehead and checking the panel in engrave mode.
Romanos, can you make the lower stave first chord line up with the upper stave chord? That’s the thing that I remember being a pain, last time I went through this…
(Sorry for the unsolicited advice. I once consulted a professional pianist (university accompanist and chair of piano dept.) about a composition and a few alternative ways of notating something. She was adamant you use the simplest (easiest to read) notation that will reflect the sound produced by the instrument rather than a theoretical “perfect” notation, with special consideration to the sustain pedal and its effects.)
If you do this it does perfectly:
(This makes sense since the same pitches are full quarters in the RH.)
But to answer your question, yes: you have to put notes into column 1, then drag it back over, and then force the rest via the round handle way to the right (criss cross, essentially).
If you do it that way though it is confusing as it looks like you wait a 16th rest after the 8th note C. I’d heartily recommend just making the C a quarter note.
Yes, but that’s not what the OP specified! I don’t know whether the OP is engraving his/her own composition, but I certainly wouldn’t take the liberty of rewriting this (for example) :
Debussy knew exactly what he wanted, and changing any of the note values would distort the voice leading he’s asking for.
Apologies for the unsolicited disagreement, but as a staff accompanist at a conservatoire and a pro pianist I politely disagree with whoever it is that you’re quoting.
1 Like
I reread the OP - it’s Schubert. I wouldn’t take the liberty of rewriting Schubert’s note values…
As weird as it may seem at first blush, you could also experiment with stemlet beaming.
EDIT: this changes the LOOK of the edition but not the semantic value.
Whoops, you’re right. Well, ignore my last few posts then lol.
I will say though-- there is genuinely something to be said for acting as editor (in general). Plenty of cases of composers calling for things that didn’t make sense (although not in this case). There are often times more than one way to notate something that means the same too… Sometimes one way is scribbled in a manuscript or is used in an old edition, but that doesn’t actually make it the best way to notate it, in which case an editorial decision can be validly taken.