When I copy and paste tuplets, they turn into normal non-tuplet values. Is this a setting somewhere? For example, 8th tuplets turn into normal 8ths.
Make sure the number/ratio is selected as well as the noteheads, and then you’ll find they copy and paste just fine.
I am selecting the full bar for copying. But I have turned off the showing of the numbers in Engraving preferences, maybe that’s what’s giving the problem. That is a little strange though, they are still real tuplets, even if the ratio numbers aren’t showing.
Yep, when I turn on the option to show the ration number in Engraving preferences, they paste correctly. This is something that should be fixed.
If you turn on Signposts for Tuplets (View > SIgnposts > Tuplets) and make sure that THOSE are selected, as well as the notes, they’ll copy just fine.
No, this is not something that should be fixed: if you want to copy and paste tuplets, make sure they’re selected. It’s useful to be able to paste the notes from tuplets independently of the tuplet bracket/number, since Dorico can scale notes into and out of tuplets.
Ah. Ok. I understand the logic behind this. Still, if I don’t want to see the ratio numbers, not even as signposts to keep a clear score while engraving, it’s an extra step just for a quick copy and paste. Isn’t there another solution to copy tuplets, like for example control-select instead of normal select to copy/paste a bar as it is? (meaning including the tuplets)?
No, if you can’t see them, you can’t select them, hence you can’t copy them. Perhaps assign a shortcut to the View > Signposts > Tuplet menu item so that you can toggle it more quickly?
Daniel, though I do understand the rationale behind this from a programming perspective, as a user this somehow feels wrong.
The notes that I select ARE tuplets, no matter if I can select the ration numbers for visibility reasons or not. When I select tuplets with hidden ratios and paste them elsewhere, I expect to get, well, tuplets with hidden ratios again. If I want something else (like only notes) I would expect this to be accessible via a special command.
See MS Word: They have the regular paste command which pastes all attributes like color or font, and there is an extra “past only text” option, which ignores everything but the pure text content.
I don’t agree. I tuplet CONTAINS notes (and/or rests), but that doesn’t mean a tuplet IS a note (or a rest).
From a programming perspective, the difference between “an X is (a particular special case of) a Y” and “a Y is a container that holds X’s, and often other things as well” (often abbreviated to “a Y has X’s”) is absolutely fundamental in object-oriented design - and you mix up the two ideas at your own risk!
Rob, I see what you are saying.
But please show me one professional composer or arranger who thinks of tuplets as being a container of notes.
As I said, from a programming perspective I understand this. I myself am a programmer and know a thing or two about OOP But in my opinion this is a case where the technical data model does not correlate with the mental model users have in their mind.
I believe that no matter how you look at it, when I copy a bar, I mean to copy that bar, and not that bar except some elements. In that case, I would enter that bar anew.
I agree that there is something disquieting about tuplets not being selected by default when hidden. Copying a bar and pasting its content exactly is what we do 99% of the time. However, this also brings to mind the fact that we really should have a “signpost bar” with tick boxes visible at all times (if we wish it) to deal with view options more quickly and efficiently.
what about a preference setting wher you can define to copy “what you see” or “all bar information”
Well, I’ve met plenty of “professional” musicians (“professional” as in “they get paid for what they do”) who don’t seem capable of any logical thought, so I don’t quite see the relevance of the comment.
Be that as it may, “selecting a tuplet” and “selecting the notes inside a tuplet” are two different things, and both have their uses.
Is this an edge case that doesn’t fit into the current model?
I have a series of triplets doubled at the octave in one voice, and I want to move the lower octave into its own voice. If I select just the notes (and not the signposts), then choose “New down-stem voice”, and I’m left with a top voice in triplets and a lower voice not in triplets. If I select the notes and the signposts and move them to a new voice, I’m left with the opposite—top voice not in triplets, bottom voice in triplets.
Is there a way to do actually do what I’m trying to here? Or is this an edge case that simply isn’t possible with the current tuplet model?
Dorico is the best. Thanks.
Rob, I totally agree on that.
My only point is: “Doing something with the whole tuplet” is a much more common operation than “Doing something with the notes inside of a tuplet and making them a non-tuplet on the way”. For the second task I would be happy to use some 3-keys-involving shortcut or even a menu entry “copy without tuplet”. The first task should be the no-brainer.