Certainly not a big issue, but I was wondering why Divisi and Unis. are not standard in the Strings Playing Techniques. I know I can add them or just type text. I am just curious what the thinking was in omitting them. Whether to play something as a double-stop seems to be in the playing technique family. 
Not important.
Are they actually playing techniques? To me, divisi and unis aren’t telling the section how to play, rather, however they play, they should play divided. You can certainly create those techniques if desired, I just can’t see a reason for them when Dorico’s divisi functionality is pretty robust.
EDIT
I can see a reason for creating the techniques: you have divisi samples that you want to change to during those sections. Other than that…
1 Like
I understand, but I do think div is telling the player how to play; that is, don’t play double-stops. That said, it is not a big deal and I will create them.
I always make the techniques myself as playing techniques. Not necessarily for any playback reason, but in many cases even though the strings are divided, I may not want separate staves in either the score or the part. If I were to use the Dorico divisi functionality, in order to have the part not be two staves, I would have to use condensing in the part as well, which is probably not ideal. At least, I’ve never heard of it being suggested practice to use condensing in the parts.
Adding the indications as shift-X text is possible but increases the likelihood of inconsistent entry especially in the case of multiple people working on the same file (ex. “Unis.” “unis.” unis” “unison” “unisoni” etc). That way as well, if you have to adapt it to a different house style, you can change all entries at once with one change, instead of having to change each one individually.
2 Likes
More common in the context of double stops in orchestral parts is non div. (or you could also use the nonarp ornament to bracket notes together).
2 Likes