I was wondering if the following is possible, to condense instruments in a family which are of the same fundamental pitch except for an octave apart. For example, ones which I frequently consider:
Clarinet in Bb, with Bass Clarinet in Bb (also using Treble Clef).
Bassoon with Contrabassoon
Flute with Piccolo
Some tuned percussion, such as Glockenspiel with Vibraphone (I think that might be 2 octaves higher?)
So far, I’ve been able to successfully condense them by manually setting it up usually via the Condensing Change function in the Engrave tab. However, the obvious issue I run into is the octave disparity which creates a ton of ledger lines (and doesn’t save me space):
Is there some way of telling Dorico to treat any of the transposing instruments by an octave (or more) to ignore that and display at their usual place in the clef? In other words to see that Bass Clarinet as if I’m looking at a normal Bass Clarinet in Treble Clef staff. To many it would be fairly obvious with the knowledge that the instrument is lower (or higher), but I can of course always explain this on a notes page too (all bass instruments sound an octave lower than written etc).
I believe that with some effort, it is possible to achieve what you want. Go to the bass clarinet part and transpose everything up an octave. To restore the appearance of the part, add an explicit clef at the beginning and set its Octave shift property to 1. With a custom condensing group and manual condensing changes where needed, it should now be possible to obtain the appearance you want in the score. The remaining problem is that the bass clarinet plays back an octave too high.
If the VST you are using for the bass clarinet allows the MIDI notes to be transposed down an octave (e.g. HALion Sonic), then do so. If the VST does not allow the MIDI notes to be transposed (e.g. NotePerformer), then make a copy of the expression map for the bass clarinet, modify every base switch to transpose down an octave, and assign the modified expression map to the bass clarinet. This expression map can be exported from the current project and imported into other projects. It can also be used to condense bassoon with contrabassoon or cellos with double basses if those instruments use the same expression map.
Hi John, that’s a fantastically clever solution and yet staring me right in the face, I hadn’t even considered it!
I went ahead and tried your tip on a score with Clarinets and Bass Clarinet. I think it works great for my needs, where the Bass Clarinet enters on m.3 with the second Bb clarinet a2 with the first:
Under condensing change I set Bass Clarinet to down stem, and both normal Clarinets to up stem. For this particular piece that works great and I think it’s entirely clear what’s going on (though again I would probably provide an explanation in the opening of the full score just to be safe). Depending on musical context I’ll play around with the various settings to find what works best for each project.
For my workflow regarding playback, I use NotePerformer a lot - so I might do the expression map edit as suggested. I also quite often create my own hidden playback only staves (where I’ll use manual staff visibility set to hidden, allowing me create music just for playback which I duplicate to the real staff as needed with supress playback). Or, sometimes when having to do “score only” changes different from playback, especially if the part we’re talking about is only a few measures at most, I have taken a more simple approach where I leave a comment or staff text at the front, quite literally: “Raise bass clarinet up an octave for print/PDF only” – and then undo to save. Or finally, if I feel the composition is totally locked, there’s a world in which I simply duplicate the flow and label them accordingly (Playback Only Flow, Score Flow). These ways, I can remember when opening a project a year later what’s going on there, and I don’t have to mess with any back-end playback settings. Plenty of options to play around with.
This will definitely save necessary space – thanks for the idea!
Sorry to be the Devil’s advocate here, but if I would encounter a score notated this way, I would instantly wonder what octave the bass clarinet is playing… I’m afraid saving space doesn’t make up for it being quite ambiguous. It’s just so non-standard, as opposed to the cello + double bass combo, that’s been common for hundreds of years. But maybe we’ll get used to it eventually?
To be clear, this is mostly for internal use with myself and collaborators - where everyone is on the same page. Like I said, as well, the front page of any score would also clarify and explain “all condensed bass instruments sound an octave lower than written” or some language to this effect. Saving a couple staves which only have occasional doubling for a measure here and there, prevents the overall score from being overly crowded or having to be scaled down to fit in such a way that it is overall too tiny and nearly unreadable; whereas I am finding for that odd measure here and there, if it can be consolidated with other staves and understood in context that it is written as it normally would be on a staff but still sounding at its respective octave, then the overall score can be larger, less cramped, and therefore an overall better reading experience! So that’s my thought process behind it - sacrifices must be made sometimes, and it feels suitable – and I think as long as all parties are on the same page and there is a preface explaining this, there shouldn’t be any issues.
But my idea is not necessarily for scores which would be published to the public, nor handed to live players – I’m fully cognizant of the fact it’s definitely going against standards and all laws of music!
I am wondering now about a simpler approach for those parts which I double onto other instruments in their entirety, so they could read the same staff, but the difference might be one instrument is playing the same part an octave higher or lower. We see this done frequently with cellos and basses but as mentioned earlier this is common and understood without explanation.
However, let’s say I do something like double a harp part with a celesta or a xylophone, both in treble clef reading the same part, but I want the celesta to play it within its correct transposition (as in, read the score as they normally would, which makes it an octave above the harp).
For this task, I feel like it would be easiest to use manual staff visibility to hide one of the instruments (but still have it sounding for playback), and relabel the other one to include both. My question for the community is, do you think this is clear enough, understood they would simply read the music in their respective registers?
Definitely option 2. I have seen similar things in reduced scores for analysis purposes, and I guess it may be acceptable as a desperate space-saving measure. But other than the classic cello+bass combo there’s not enough precedent for this to assume it’s directly understood by all.
Thanks for the advice! I very frequently double different kinds of keyboards and tuned percussion to create timbral combinations (for my imaginary orchestra with an infinite budget lol), so for times like that I think one staff/clef but with a simple yet clear label will be very helpful.
When not doubling the entire way through, but rather perhaps emphasized moments, I might use manual staff labels to do the exact same thing, label the instrument and the octave transposition.
Or I’ll experiment with using a continuation line. Either way this type of thing is a bit of the wild west. I think as long as I’m clear and everyone is on the same page, it will be fine. I’ve looked at far more confusing study scores, such as this one I have of Debussy’s Rhapsodie published by G. Henle Verlag, where numerous and unrelated instruments (of various tranpositions) jump around and share the same 4 staves the entire time. Sax, viola, oboe, cor anglais, and harp frequently end up on the same staff, with mere labels in between, with no explanation on the front page, though it is assumed they are all written in concert pitch. So I guess it could be worse!
By the time you’re emulating a score like that, you’re better off doing all of it by hand, wrangling Dorico’s condensing feature for that would be rather dreadful. And also make sure you have a backup edition of the score in a standard layout ready to go, for when a non-imaginary conductor asks for it.
edit: I’m reminded also of the first edition score of Schönberg’s Violin Concerto (IMSLP) which thinks it’s a reduction but still also wants to be a full score, kinda failing at both in the process. Ah, modernists…
