Please have a look at this picture…
When I first noticed that the decrescendo at (1) ends a bit to the right, I thought that the non-existent bar line might cause this and maybe I would need to look for an engraving option that would cause the ends ot this arrow to be at the same position as the one above. Both of them have been input by selecting the whole note event and pressing “>”.
Then I looket at (2) where there is in fact a bar and the arrow crosses it.
So, why do those arrows end at varying positions, when their corresponding notes do not?
Were any of the decresendos copied? #2 makes sense in that I goes to the dynamic marking that was appended to it. If the decree was copied to the first example, it would give that result. You can change the appearance of these by highlighting the mark, then in Engrave mode, tick the box for Barline Interaction, where you can choose where you wish it to end.
#2 refers to the last-but-one line which has no dynamic mark after it.
Most of them were copied initially, but when I noticed the difference I removed them and input them one by one, which gives the same result.
So I suspect there is some unterlying code that gives us these varying lenths.
I experience this frequently, looking forward to the answer.
It’s puzzle, but the one thing I do notice is that all the decrescendos that extend over the carline are the ones that have an eighth tied to the dotted whole. Shouldn’t make any difference, but I wonder what would happen if you removed the tie? And/or removed the tie, entered the decres, then re-applied the tie. Tedious, yes. But I do think that something in that extra half-beat is the culprit.
If I remove the tie using the scissors tool, the crescendo stays as it is.
I’ve tried various routes to get this result, including ties, no ties, adding the crescendo before, adding it later. It all comes to the same result: When the crescendo does not start on beat 1 but before (does not need to be an eighth like in my example, can be more), then the crescendo will exceed the barline, no matter if there is a tie between the notes or not.
BTW, all of this has been entered using the pc keyboard and a fresh new document; no fuzzy XML import logic going on.
This is to do with the presence or absence of the barline. When a barline joins the staves, Dorico stops the hairpin to the left of the barline so that it doesn’t produce an ugly collision; when there is no barline joining the staves where the hairpin appears, the hairpin goes to the rhythmic position at which it ends, just after the barline. If you don’t like this, go to the Dynamics page of Engraving Options, and under the Gradual Dynamics heading, expand the Advanced Options group, and set ‘Hairpins ending at beginning of note at start of bar’ to ‘Do not cross barline’. There is alternatively a property ‘Barline interaction’ that allows you to override this on a case-by-case basis.
That makes sense. However, in the example above, at #2, one of the two does cross a barline. It is good to know this can be handled globally, but the example at #2 is odd. Or am I missing something?
I wouldn’t have thought the hairpin on the penultimate stave should be protruding beyond the barline. (At least, not unless the barline interaction property for that hairpin is set to “continue”.) If that property’s not set and you don’t mind, please do e-mail me the score and I’ll take a look when I get the chance. My e-mail address is m.eastwood [at] steinberg [dot] de. If you’d rather chop the score down before you send it to me, that’s absolutely fine as long as the problem still occurs.