I’m working on a file imported from Finale via XML, and using Aria Player as a playback device for the instrument. In Finale, using CC#1 or #11 is either-or for some of the Garritan libraries. In any event, it writes data to the xml.
The problem is, this controller data seems to be out of reach of Dorico’s editing tools.
When I pick an Expression Map from the available list of Expression Maps in Play that suggests either Mod Wheel or CC11 for expression data, a ghost line shows up in the lanes in the Editor. If I choose Default, the ghost date in the lane disappears.
In the best case, I’d be able to activate and edit, or better yet delete that CC data that’s lurking in the file beyond reach.
I’ll be needing to cope with these imported xmls for awhile I think. Any thoughts?
The “ghost lines” show you the effect of what Dorico is automatically calculating for playback. So if, for example, the expression map uses the mod wheel for dynamics, you will see the grey lines in the CC1 editor in the Key Editor reflecting the dynamics written in the score. You want this data to appear, because if there’s nothing shown here, you won’t hear any dynamics during playback.
Thank you ! I’d begun to suspect that, having noticed that the “ghost” line changes when markings are edited in the score. I notice the line disappears when I choose “Default” as the Expression Map for the instrument.
Do score markings override any edits in the lanes in Play, when one of the interpreter maps is selected? that had been my previous experience. To ask it another way, if I want to control playback with the lanes, do I need to choose “Default” expression map?
I would advise against using only the Default expression map, because you’re choosing to do a lot more manual work than you need to. Let Dorico handle the dynamics for you.
No. You just avoid notating any dynamics and remove any humanization from the Playback options. Of course, you should also avoid using any articulations and set CC appropriate controllers appropriate to switch your particular VSTs. But that seems like redoing an awful lot of work that Dorico will handle for you automatically.
Thank you! I found that CC#11 plus Velocity works very well with Garritan winds and strings. Everything else Garritan is velocity only. The resulting Dorico midi sounds the same in Logic with the same libraries loaded 
Having just created my first keyswitched Expression Map, I’ve got some thoughts… First, Expression Maps are like Logic’s Articulation sets… but much better. Why? Because Dorico provides a list of techniques that it recognizes, that are applied via the Playing Techniques popover, that are then passed through the Expression Map to the VST.
This is brutally cool. Plus, you can audition your techniques as you add them, providing the new Expression Map you’re creating has been assigned to the instrument.
And, unlike creating a Logic Articulation Set, the settings you need (note on, velocity 127) are pre-populated so you don’t have to change every damn thing when you’re setting em up.
At first I was thinking, I’m gonna be doing this in Logic anyway, why bother with Dorico? Well, AFAICT, having these things working properly in Dorico ensures that exported midi is gonna have the data you need and will be much closer to a desired result out of the box.
The only further advantage I could envision is if Dorico started employing the Articulation Set tactic of assigning an id to each note to correspond to keyswitch calls - although that would probably break the Technique pass-through system in place now. 2 different approaches to the same problem.
Ideally, best case, Dorico and Logic get together on a standard for portable Articulation Sets/Expression Maps, so they become portable everywhere.
feature-request finale-crossgrade