Dorico 3 Condensed Scores

Nothing in software is truly impossible, given sufficient time, money and will, but in the absence of overwhelming proof of the necessity for a player moving from one staff to another within the span of a single system, it is not something I anticipate us tackling in Dorico.

Looking at that particular example again, it seems clear to me, since it is a whole system, that you should have Horn 1 on the upper staff and Horns 2.3.4 on the lower staff. Is the only reason you don’t do that because it’s a pain in the bum to change the labels system-by-system in Finale (which I know HL use for this kind of engraving work) or is it the case that you stubbornly never want to change the labels at the start of the system, even though in this case it would obviously be much clearer at a glance if the staves were labeled 1 / 2.3.4?

In any case, I would expect Dorico to produce the desired notated result for this system, with Horn 1 on the upper staff and Horns 2.3.4 on the lower staff with no intervention from you. And it would label the staves correctly, and show the correct “a 3” label for the final two bars on the Horn 2.3.4 staff automatically, as well.

Wait, so is this a given that the next version will bring condensation? This somehow escaped me!

How will the condensation and the divisi features interact? Will we be able to finally show material differently on different layouts?

Condensation and divisi will not interact. Divisi can only be used for section players, and section players will not be condensable.

Hi Daniel, thanks for the response.

This may very well be part of it, though obviously I can’t speak for the engravers at HL for the example I gave. They do it almost a dozen times in that score at various points.

No, in both my scores and this HL score, this is done often. As you know, It’s clunky to keep track of in Finale, and easy to make a mistake, so I’m really looking forward to the automation you’ve built into the feature.

I completely agree that for this example, it would be more clear to do as you described.

I have the same situation crop up occasionally. Usually it’s the 2nd Clarinet that wanders between a combined 2nd/3rd Clarinet score stave and the 1st Clarinet stave.

It seems to me the only solution is to have, for example, 3 layouts for only the Clarinet parts 1-2-3 and 2 additional layouts to be shown on the score only, for Clarinet 1 and Clarinet 2/3. The only difficulty might be labeling the score staves - Clarinet 1 and Clarinet 2/3 on certain pages, Clarinet 1/2 and Clarinet 3 on others.

Daniel, any comment on this?

In our approach, all three clarinets would be part of the same condensable group, and Dorico would figure it out for you, with 1.2 / 3 when that makes sense, 1 / 2.3 when that makes sense, or even 1.2.3 if that makes sense.

Here comes the annoying one (and yes, I do still have your caveat from the other thread in mind):

That’s a pity to hear. The actual challenge that was to be solved in orchestral engraving was this one. It’s the big one, the one that usually leads to splitting files or extracting (which are two weaknesses that you often specifically address when designing or presenting new features and workflows), and so forth. While I do appreciate the conceptual tidiness of Dorico’s divisi feature, the only problem it really solved was the one introduced by Dorico’s own philosophy of staff management, and not something really felt out there “in the wild” or in other software. We really need another layer of abstraction for section players as well; I’m sure you’re well aware that the literature calls for it, and well within what’s considered common practice nowadays. Would you feel at liberty to comment on whether you felt this was a different sort of technical challenge, or how it conceptually didn’t fit with the idea of condensation, or very simply if whatever was implemented in 3 was “enough” in terms of hours and effort for the time being and other areas deserved the priority?

A bit more on topic: how much manual control do we have over which instruments get condensed into which staff? Can we force a certain configuration?

I couldn’t disagree more with your assessment of how Dorico’s divisi feature only solves a problem of Dorico’s own making. Dorico’s divisi feature addresses a number of very real issues that exist in preparing scores and parts, particularly the fact that the layout should not be dictated by where the divisions start and stop, which they most certainly are in other programs.

Will condensing be possible with arbitrary instruments? e.g. Trumpet, Alto Sax, Tenor Sax, Trombone? (I think the answer is yes)

If so, how will it handle voice crossing? e.g. in an A section, Trumpet plays the lead w/ Alto harmonizing; in B section, Alto plays lead w/ Trumpet harmonizing.

The layout was never all that much dictated by where the divisions start and stop because an experienced engraver’s workflow takes that into consideration and the tools were in place to solve it. I’m not writing from the point of view of users who come here to learn how it should be done for the first time. And it’s not like you can ignore that digital engraving has existed for decades because, well, you’re part of that history. What you mean is that you brought the solution to a bigger share of users (which is, undeniably, a good thing). But by automating the steps to overcome that specific challenge, you necessarily remove flexibility – that’s true about automating in any conceivable case –, meaning we are now dependent on the team to specifically address some specific interaction or other. In the meantime, I will still need an unconventional workflow – one much less conventional than what one has to do in order to manage divisi elsewhere – in case a string divisi is clear enough for the conductor to glance at while the players would be better served by having it divided.

You will be able to force dissimilar instruments to be condensed together, but when they have different transpositions (as trumpet, saxophones and trombones do) you’re not going to get a very sensible result, because you cannot show multiple transpositions on the same staff at the same time.

In general, however, you will have some control over to what extent voices can cross before the music can no longer appear on the same staff. Each staff will have a maximum of two voices, one up-stem and one down-stem, though each voice may correspond to more than one player. Any notes that cross mean that Dorico will not be able to put those notes onto the same stem (i.e. in the same voice) because it would then be ambiguous as to whose note is whose. But you can choose how many crosses one voice may have with the other before the music can no longer be condensed on the same staff.

Yes, provided you’re willing to do the work (at least) twice, once for the score and once for the parts. (In which case I don’t really see how you’re any worse off now than you were in any other program, and of course those programs still exist, if you find them more conducive to your way of working.)

I can tell you’re sore, Luìs, perhaps because I mentioned that you are a demanding user in this other thread, and I’m sorry if I caused you any offence. Please don’t feel the need to play up to my carelessly-expressed opinion of you by way of making a point.

Okay yeah, I was thinking it would show them in concert key.

[quote=“pat_”]
If so, how will it handle voice crossing? e.g. in an A section, Trumpet plays the lead w/ Alto harmonizing; in B section, Alto plays lead w/ Trumpet harmonizing.
[/quote]

In general, however, you will have some control over to what extent voices can cross before the music can no longer appear on the same staff. Each staff will have a maximum of two voices, one up-stem and one down-stem, though each voice may correspond to more than one player. Any notes that cross mean that Dorico will not be able to put those notes onto the same stem (i.e. in the same voice) because it would then be ambiguous as to whose note is whose. But you can choose how many crosses one voice may have with the other before the music can no longer be condensed on the same staff.

Interesting. Maybe what I’m asking about is more about reducing rather than condensing, where I’m more interested in tracking harmonies rather than individual parts.

Thanks for the info!

Condensing does not address the same use cases as the existing Reduce feature. If you want to produce a single-staff reduction of a bunch of notes belonging to different instruments in order to examine their harmonies, then copying the material and pasting using Reduce is going to be a better option for you.

This is great! I remember you were on the fence about making this possible months ago.

Fair enough. I was hoping Dorico would keep a reduced version up to date automatically, but the reduce command isn’t so much trouble :slight_smile:

Daniel, could you please comment on this as well. I am really curious, if this will be possible.

Thanks in advance.

I would find it terribly helpful if there were linked reductions too. I can think of “linking” staves such as SA and TB lines to the choral reduction part, so that if you changed a note on one it would update in the other. This could be very useful for composing too (in condensed layout) as long as you used an upstem and downstem voice in each condensed part. Conversely, I can imagine what a headache this could cause for the development team for how it could confuse users who don’t properly understand the feature and end up with a different result than they were expecting.

Mid-system condensation changes look like this (example from Joe Hisaishi’s Melodyphony):

Horn 1.2.3.4./5.6. change to 1.3.5./2.4.6.

Trombone 4. move to Tuba staff

Staff labels of next system

An advantage of a mid-system condensation change is that it is conspicuous to the score-reader. If a mid-system change is not possible, is there any kind of warning that the condensation changes in the next system? Akin to a cautionary key signature, or choral divisi change arrows?