I have raised this before, but I still can’t work out how to create a multi-movement project in Dorico.
I have edited 20+ Handel operas for performance using Finale. They are “numbers” operas, with recitatives and arias and occasionally Sinfonias. To set up a project I create a Grand Staff, with all the instruments and voices which appear in the opera. I set up the score on A3, which can be scaled to B4 or A4 as needed. I use a Finale stave height of 7.23 mm. After setting up the Grand Staff I scale it so that I can achieve at least two systems on a page unless that is impossible. For Handel’s operas this usually means a maximum of two systems of 10 staves. If more staves are needed, it becomes one system on a page. This sets the standard size for the full score and also the parts. The parts will have a stave height of 7.23 mm; the full score will usually be scaled smaller. I decide on the scaling to achieve a balance between size and avoiding things like underlay being obscured by music in the stave below.
I then enter the music and underlay a movement at a time, starting at No 1 and working to the end. This can mean having just one movement in a file, but usually two or more. For a project with, say, 82 separate movements (recitatives and arias) I may have 60 files. I print these as PDFs and join them to make a full score.
After extracting parts, I use Finale’s Score Merger tool to join files together when creating part books. The Basso Continuo will have both the orchestral bass and voice parts in recitatives. In accompagnatos the voice part is also printed above the instrumental part. The vocal stave will be 75% the size of the orchestral stave. Other instruments will have cues at the end of recitatives, which will be shown as one line, mostly multi-bar rest, plus a cue. Music may be moved to other pages to achieve decent page turns. Some instruments will not play in several movements, and I usually just put a list of those movements, marked Tacet.
Is it possible to adopt this approach using Dorico? I accept that after using Finale for about 30 years I am set in my ways, but I can’t get my head round “flows” and I don’t know what else.
Hi @pedrapislwyn, I suggest (in case you don’t know it) this Post and Video by @benwiggy.
(It was made in Dorico 4, in 2022, and now there are probably new features that would make the process even easier) :
It shows the many advantages of using Flow and generally the Dorico elegant, consistent and effective workflow for such projects.
The main advantageous aspects of adopting the Dorico workflow would be IMO: Setup (with the Players, Flows, Layouts interconnection), Page Templates, Flow Headings , and of course all the global settings, that give coherence and cohesiveness to the whole Project (and you can export and import the desired settings between projects using the Library Manager) etc…
Everything you outlined is possible in Dorico - and probably much simpler to do.
Consider each number (Overture, Recitative, Aria, Sinfonia) to be a Flow. Adding cues is simple. Parts with Tacets - no problem. Continuo parts with Vocals - easy, including reduced size vocal stave, whilst retaining full size in Vocal parts and score.
One challenge might be handling text stage directions.
I guess for this to achieve the way would be, create an extra player “singer cue” where these last cues of the recitatives will get notated, and include this player into all relevant instrumental layouts.
That circumvents Dorico’s automatic [Tacet] function, but is probably a grown standard.
Usually the penultimate text line of a recitative rhymes to this cue, so players will really get ready in advance (once they have figured this out).
Ooh, I’ll have to work this one out. It’s pretty straightforward in Finale: when I extract the parts I add cues to the instrumental lines as needed, usually three or four bars. The conductor should alert them in any case - I hope.
I shall have to bite the bullet and set up an opera score in Dorico, possibly one I have already done in Finale. However, like nearly everyone, I am always up against deadlines so will have to find the luxury of a project when I’m not expected to supply everything yesterday.
I conducted a few Händel operas. “Waking up” the orchestra in time at the end of a recitative is absolutely common like in all operas and operettas/musicals which contain spoken dialogues. In my opinion it’s not necessary to provide cues to the players. In most cases the sheet music we’ve rent from a publisher didn’t contain any recitative cues at all.
Regarding Parts: In Dorico you need only one project file for everything. There is nothing to extract. The cues are dynamic and appear only in parts unlike Finale where creating cues was tedious.
I agree, but interestingly enough I recently retrieved a set of my parts from a production in which cuts were made in the recitatives. I found that the players had written in the new number in the multi-bar rest before the cue and had written in new cues when the original endings had been cut. I suppose it’s horses for courses. Being a simple soul I take the line that it’s easier to put cues in, even if not really necessary, than have people complain if they’re not there.
I’m still finding the Dorico learning curve is vertical, but I hope I’ll get there eventually.
I prefer to put it this way: You are taking care of (your singers and) your instrumentalists, so you give the players the opportunity to relax in between their numbers. They can, if they trust you to get a little reminder before the next action. I know that a section leader can make the conductor feel unwell, if he/she doesn’t show their trust to get reminded and start getting their fiddles into position, when it’s not time yet. In a way it’s the same, if section players gets the instrument into position early, meaning, they don’t trust their leader to know, when it’s time.
I’ve never encountered such a “distrustful” behavior in more than 30 years work experience at many opera houses, not against myself nor against one of the other conductors.