This project Román népi táncok 3.dorico (1.0 MB)
is a transposition from the piano version of Bartok’s Romanian Folk Dances 3. Though the Piano right hand is given to one of my favorite instruments, the concert pitch is the same as the one in my source partition (The Sheet Music Archive), The problem first occurs at the short trill in bar 6, on a note that is F# in concert pitch, and G in transposed pitch. The trill must be raised, i.e. to a G# in concert pitch and a A♮ in transposed pitch. The Ornament section of the properties panel allow me to add the ♮ by setting the Interval value to 2. The problem is that I have a Concert Pitch Layout, and in this layout it still appears as ♮, when it should be a #, The Interval property is global of course, so it cannot be managed through Layout specifics. By contrast, at bar 20, the upper note appears explicitly, and it appears as a ♮ or a #, depending on the layout. Is there a way to manage it
I think the probem arises from the fact that the property value must be the actual value of the accidental attributed to the upper note, when in pratice it should be the delta to be applied to it?
I think there might even be problems without transposing instruments: in a piece in C# minor, if you had a short trill on a E#, and wanted to raise it, there does not seem to be a way to get a double sharp ?
In Baroque and early music, I could get away by always choosing #, since this was understood as transforming a flat into a natural. But this is Bartok!
This is not a major problem for me, I have no real need to print the Concert Pitch layout, it is more of a reference. I expect that the playback will be wrong, but I can live with that. I just wanted to report it. Maybe it has already been reported, if this is the case, apologies for the redundancy.
Hi @pmc.galoubet, I am not sure I understand the issue you are describing. Defining the trill interval to 2 major, both the Concert Pitch layout and Transposed Pitch layout look and playback correctly:
In this piece, I discovered you have specified it to be in 24-EDO (Stein-Zimmermann) . The trills on the written Gs seem to have an interval of 2/24, which corresponds to a half step in regular 12-EDO. When I change those to +4/24, the accidental will show as a small C triple flat, which is utterly ridiculous of course. But the interval number doesn’t always seem to correspond to the tonality system.
When I mess around a bit, sometimes the popup menu for interval changes from a series of x/24 ratios to the ordinary Major/Minor etc. When I choose Major, the interval amount also becomes 2 (now in 12-EDO), and the trill shows a natural. Obviously, Dorico gets confused as to what tonality system (24 or 12-EDO) is active when you edit the trill, which I think can be considered a bug. This also explains why @Christian_R can do it without any problem. Maybe he chose 12-EDO first?
In any case, I’d advise not to use 24-EDO for music that doesn’t need it.
Hi @PjotrB, no, I didn’t change the tonality system. I think I got lucky : it seems that with 24-EDO Dorico jumps between the two systems, showing sometimes the interval for the 12-EDO, sometimes the fraction values for the 24-EDO. I made a short video showing his behaviour. And yes, setting the Ton. Sys. to 12-EDO gives always the interval “names”: good catch, Pjotr :
But you are using Trills. There are a lot of extra properties for the intervals, that do not exist for Ornaments like short trills.
The edo24 was an artefact of the musicXML import that I had not noticed. I ne ver need 24 ! Returning to12 not seem to change much.
Yes, fortunately, all notes in this piece also belong to 12-EDO, so they stay intact when you change the system. The only difference is that now your trill accidentals also behave normally.
@pmc.galoubet
Oh, I see now what you was referring to. (I just used what was there in your example, and you wrote Trills!). Now I had a look at the original Bartók score and I see what you mean.
Yes, Short Trills (baroque ornament) don’t have a semantical interval definition as in trills.
To overcome this you can create custom Playing Techniques with the necessary glyphs, apply them both to both layouts, and then strategically hide them alternatively, from the different layouts, as needed, with the properties panel set to Locally.
(You can create also one PT short trill with double sharp or double flat or whatever ).
Here an application of this, on your file (bar 6):
Oh! Great, I guess that PTs are a way to fill a lot of needs with some inventiveness . I still think it would be best if such ornaments benefitted from the same “semantical interval definition” as Trills, is it contemplated to do this? But this is indeed a solution to my problem.
Thank you very much !
I wondered if it was an acronym with a semantic relation with the items (like Component Glyph R???). I did not think of your very natural explanation !
Thanks
Indeed, I got the message .
In case people would be interested, I am attaching a small doricolib file, ornamentsPT.zip (1.3 KB)
possibly to be dropped in the DefaultLibraryAdditions folder, with definitions for sharp, natural, and flat. I have changed the text for them, not to erase your name ( ) but because I felt the need of seeing the signposts, and I wanted them to be as short as possible. If you see any blunders like the ET24, please let me know. I am aware there are in the file 3 entityIDs that must be unique, but I think that Dorico’s algorithm to genefate unique IDs is very efficient!
I had some trouble changing the names until I realized that when I changed a PT name(s), it did not affect the PT instance already created, but I had to delete them and re create (and eventually re hide) them. Is that the expected behavior? That is not very important anyway.
Thank you again for your help.
: it seems that with 24-EDO Dorico jumps between the two systems, showing sometimes the interval for the 12-EDO, sometimes the fraction values for the 24-EDO. I made a short video showing his behaviour. And yes, setting the Ton. Sys. to 12-EDO gives always the interval “names”: good catch, Pjotr 
).