Condensing Feedback

Congrats on the update! Really been enjoying the new features.

I have been testing out the condensing feature, and have run into some cases that are not being condensed “correctly”. By this, I mean that they are being condensed exactly how I would expect based on what have been documented in the Version History, but I disagree with how these cases are being condensed. I have attached a minimal Dorico project demonstrating these cases.

I will be using the same language used on pages 8–9 in the Version History document to refer to the four different levels on condensing as well as the idea of phrases.

  1. In some cases, Dorico is able to move from shared staff to shared stem within the same phrase. Other times it is not able to. In this case, the slur in mm. 4 is preventing the shared stems in mm. 5. Ideally, I would want shared stems for all parts in rhythmic unison within a phrase.
  2. Shared stem to unison seems to be working as intended, and I agree with how it is condensing. Great work!
  3. Shared staff to unison has the same issues as shared staff to shared stem. I would want mm. 2 to be written as mm. 6 is.
  4. As per Elaine Gould in Behind Bars, pg. 529: when one player is resting, either use bar rests to indicate which player is resting, or omit the bar rests and use numerals. Having both is redundant. I would ideally want an option to choose between these two approaches, as bar rests is the traditional approach and player numerals is the modern approach.
  5. When three players are in rhythmic unison and two are actually in unison, I would want the condensing to be written as shared stems. This is shown in Behind Bars on pg. 527. Additionally, the “1.2.3” marking in mm. 4 is redundant as there are three pitches in the chord and the staff contains three players.
  6. As per Gould on pg. 527: “As many parts as are in rhythmic unison share stems. A middle part may change stem direction from chord to chord as necessary.” Here, I would want mm. 2 to be written as mm. 7 is (without the player numerals, as discussed above).

I seems that the issue is either coming from Dorico’s idea of phrases, specifically that they are too long, or that the amalgamation discussed on page 11 of the Version History is not aggressive enough.

Lastly, I would like an option to determine if the player numerals should be restated after each system break. Ideally, I would like options for repeating them

  • never
  • every system
  • every page break (frame break)
  • every page turn (that is every frame break, but only on left hand/even pages)

Not the highest priority, but it would be a nice feature.

All that said, I understand that condensing was incredibly difficult to implement and how much work has gone into it. Even with the issues above, it is still very impressive. I am not excepting an update or new features imminently. I do hope that more work will go into improving condensing as time goes on, and I hope my feedback, along with the rest of the community’s feedback, can help.
Condensing Feedback.zip (443 KB)

Thanks for your feedback. We’re aware of all of these issues and that some users may have different preferences for the maximum amount of condensing in different situations, or for where phrases are considered to start and stop. Once you can create your own condensation changes, you’ll be able to address most (if not all) of these issues that way.

Thanks for your reply. I did not know you have plans to add manual condensation changes, but I’m happy to hear that. I look forward to when it will be available.