If that is the case, perhaps they should make that known to potential customers and be upfront about the software’s very serious limitations. You can make as many excuses for them as you like but, the fact still remains, the program is not fully fit for purpose. And, if what you say is true, I would really like to know why they would think it’s OK to simply neglect an aspect of the program that is so important and necessary to commercial musicians. It’s a very expensive item to have to simply throw to one side and just hope that one day it might be usable. Having said my piece, I welcome their new and innovative approach to this software. There’s no doubt that notation software needed to be rebuilt from the ground up instead of just trying to patch up old, outdated platforms which is what Sibelius and Finale are constantly doing. Initially, when I purchased Dorico 2 I brought to the teams attention the fact that the software constantly overused double sharps and flats. They were everywhere. That was a huge problem in the world of commercial music where little rehearsal time is ever possible and the job needs to get done quickly and efficiently. We like to keep things as easy to read as possible. The time I spent just respelling all the double accidentals was a nightmare. A few other people jumped in on the conversation with the same complaint. The net result that I first noticed in Pro 4 was they had resolved that issue. So now, the issue is chord symbols.
I feel they have got so much of this program right now and there are aspects that I really like. Unfortunately, the chord symbol issue is a ‘biggy’ so I guess I’m just going to have to sit it out until they find a fix for this.
Like Phil, I deal with chord symbols every day. I’m pretty happy with my current settings, but I don’t even want to think about the amount of time I’ve spent futzing around with them, learning undocumented but necessary elements, and creating undocumented doricolib files to get to this point. Here’s a simple example of how frustrating they can be …
-
Let’s say you’ve been asked to make a lead sheet of this Wayne Shorter composition, and you wish to reproduce this chord nomenclature, which is a fairly common “Real Book” type of style:
-
Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s a D4.3 file of those 2 bars with all factory defaults for chords and fonts, if anyone wants to try this.
BackstageSallyTest.dorico (441.1 KB) -
There are only 4 chords in this example, so knowing exactly where to look, and only making changes to Engraving Options and Paragraph Styles (so all global changes with obvious settings), within a few minutes I can get to this:
I am curious how long it might take a less inexperienced user, but there of course is a learning curve to any software. -
Not too bad so far. The sharps on the #9#5 chord are basically illegible and terribly positioned. That suffix also dips slightly below the baseline of the font which shouldn’t ever happen. Upon closer examination, little alignment issues like the fact that the 7 on the G chord isn’t quite aligned with the other superscripted 7s appear too. That will need to be fixed for publication or serious work as well.
-
As there’s no clear global suffix editor, a novice user may now get sidetracked with single overrides in Engrave mode or in Project Default Appearances. We of course want to make global changes, so we’ll do it with Edit Chord Symbol Component. Let’s fix the 7 positioning first. But wait, I can’t make a global change to the half-diminished 7th suffix, as the circle with a slash and the 7 are separate characters in the editor.
Well, that’s a bummer, as any change to the 7 positioning in Edit Chord Symbol Component will affect all 7s, so we’ll still be slightly misaligned. We’ve hit our first pretty serious roadblock. We’ll have to create individual overrides for all half-diminished 7th chords in the project to fix this alignment issue. (Hopefully there aren’t any parenthesized half-diminished chords either, as parentheses can’t be added to chords with overrides.) Manually fixed now.
-
Let’s tackle the mess of a stacked alteration.
The sharps need to be bigger and not horribly positioned and the #9#5 stack raised a bit so the 5 and D share a baseline. In Project Default Chord Symbol Appearances, I can select the alteration stack, but it doesn’t appear selectable in blue in the non-existent row of options below like the 7 did. This means there is no global editing option for this suffix and it will have to be done for every root, ugh! -
In Edit Chord Symbol Component, both the #9 and #5 are single glyphs so the sharp and the number can’t be edited separately.
Hmm, I guess we’ll just have to delete it and recreate it if we want to fix the horrible alignment and positioning. -
I’ve deleted the suffix and am ready to recreate it. I see a sharp right there so let’s add it.
I need a 9 next, so I click the Text tab with Preset Text, scroll down to the 9 and add it.
I’ll do the same with #5. -
The sizing is obviously bonkers and the positioning needs to be changed. Let’s start scaling and modifying X and Y. This doesn’t look too bad.
-
Wait a second, there’s a much bigger gap between the #9 and #5 in the Project Default Chord Symbol Appearances window now than there was it Edit Chord Symbol Component.
Why don’t these two images match? There must be something wrong here. Plus, I still need to fix the baseline anyway so let’s edit some more. -
Gaaah! I’ve been messing with the positioning of these elements for 5 minutes and still can’t make these two editing windows match! I see there’s an Attachment tab. I’m not sure what that does but maybe changing those will help. This now looks pretty good.
-
WTH?!?!?! The Project Default Chord Symbol Appearances window now looks like this.
I assume most users will give up here, rather than fiddle with this any more. All I was trying to do was enter 4 chords in a standard Real Book style at a publishable standard. I didn’t even mention yet the fact that the prominently displayed sharp glyph I was trying to add now won’t match any other sharps in other chord symbols in the score, which will all be using the undocumented glyphs comp.csymAccidentalSharp or comp.csymAccidentalSharpSmall. Or the fact that the user was lead to add the 9 and 5 glyphs in a completely different Font Style than all the other suffixes.
This is the sort of frustration those of us who use chord symbols daily have to deal with. I’m pretty aware of most of the pitfalls and mostly try to use undocumented doricolib files to avoid them, but that’s obviously not an option for new users. Chord symbol formatting is filled with frustration and is obviously a massive hurdle for new users.
Thanks so much for all your work on this, Fred. I don’t know if you’ve seen that Daniel has responded to me. I guessing your response was direct to him but, just incase, I’ve copied your great and detailed explanation immediately after my own response. Let’s hope he’s able to get this problem sorted because, overall, I’m really liking Dorico now. I just can’t deal with this particular problem.
Thanks again. You’ve been amazing.
Phil
Thanks for this explanation. I only now see you make the change global by editing only the suffix. This will safe a lot of time.
You mean to @DanielMuzMurray above, or Daniel Spreadbury? My response was definitely not directed to DanielMuzMurray if that’s the way it came off, as he’s another user and a valuable forum contributor. Some of my response probably veered into “old man yells at cloud” territory, and I have certainly have occasionally had some chord symbol rants on here, LOL! I’ve just gotten so used to working with them that I forget how nonsensical certain aspects of chord symbol editing look to a new user until it’s pointed out.
Take the Edit Chord Symbol Component dialog box layout for example:
Dorico: Here’s the editing window where you can modify chord suffixes.
New User: Great, it’s good to be able to configure a suffix once and then have it automatically update everywhere.
D: Well, you can with some suffixes, but not this one.
N: Oh. Well how do I know which suffixes can be globally changed and which can’t? Is there a list somewhere?
D: No.
N: So I have to remake any edits to this suffix for every single possible root?
D. Yes.
N: That’s sort of a PITA. At least the chord elements are all right there on the right of the screen and easily accessible.
D: Actually, none of those accidentals are used for chord suffixes.
N: What? Then why put them there?
D: The accidentals used for chord suffixes are buried in a huge non-graphical list of items under the Composite tab over there on the right.
N: Wow, this is definitely not intuitive. I would have never found that on my own. Can you point me to the page of the documentation that explains all this?
D: No, none of this is documented.
N: gives up
I’ve spent a zillion hours configuring chord symbols so I’m sort of joking here, but this literally is how it appears to a new user, correct?
Hi Todd,
No, Daniel Spreadbury. He’s sent me some useful info and has manipulated many of the symbols to match what I’ve sent him. Will forward to you later. I’m tied up on a university juries panel right now.
Phil
Sounds familiar. Our juries are next week, but I’m way behind in adjudicating recitals (from videos).
I’m happy to hear things are getting somewhat better already. The Dorico team (especially Daniel) read every post on this forum and are probably the most responsive team ever when it comes to dealing with issues raised by users.
@FredGUnn, the amount of clear thinking and detailed, precise communication in your posts are amazing and so is your willingness to help others. I don’t often use chord symbols but have often benefitted from your advice on other matters and like many (including developers, I’m sure), am grateful that you are a regular contributor to this forum.
Thanks!!!
I am definitely a Dorico fan but it was not my intention to make excuses or minimize the problems you are having. It is clear there are significant problems with chord symbols in Dorico today. However, you make a point of praising the chord symbol functionality in Sibelius and it is relevant to point out that Dorico is now developed by that same team and will (presumably) eventually benefit from the same expertise in relation to its chord symbol functionality. But… I have no knowledge of and make no apology for why this aspect of music notation hasn’t been given higher priority so far or when that might happen. Perhaps your recent communications with Daniel have shed some light on this.
Daniel has been incredibly helpful and come up with what seems to be a pretty good workaround for the time being until a proper fix is established.