Hi @Romanos
Just because the Dorico team use the word flow as a general term to describe a music storage container as part of recognising it may have a range of uses doesn’t mean that they necessarily specifically understand the specific conflict I highlighted - between using flows for composition - and using flows for performance breaks and formatting. Can you and the four people who were more eager to like your criticism of my suggestion (which doesn’t engage with it in any way) give me a break? I mean you didn’t actually give any indication whether or not you like my idea and why - not that I need that - you could instead have improved on it (with some detail) - I would consider either a compliment - real engagement. Do you have a better idea or is my suggestion (which rides on the coat tails of @snakeeyes021) the best one you can think of (but you just forgot to mention it)?
One addition to my suggestion - since the number of flows will become very big if flows really do become compositional units my suggestion is that the flow view I suggested in my previous post require the user to choose the version (a word I defined in my previous post) whose flows they want access to - reducing the number of possible flows to those contained in the version. Except in one situation - and this raises an issue with providing the abilities I have suggested - if there are lots of flows how is the user supposed to remember what music is contained in a particular flow? My suggestion is that when a user double clicks on a flow in the arrange view I suggested exist - (when the fact that they have named the flow isn’t enough to remind them what music is in it) - it should open in Flow view (which is either Page or galley view - but viewing just one flow). Then pressing some kind of back button returns the user to the Arrange view where flows can be added - allocated to versions - and ordered - and duplicated - and parked - and deleted. Maybe as a way to recognise the danger of forgetting that a flow can be used in multiple versions a flow would have to first be parked for all versions (I suppose there could be a way of indicating that a flow is not in use in any version) - and only then could it be deleted.
I point out that what I am calling Flow view is a kind of focus view like they have in writing programs - it hides all other music - allowing the user to work only on the flow (which might be only a small part of the piece) that they have chosen. I believe it’s an idea that would be very compatible with the problems which an iPad version of Dorico must grapple with (limited screen real estate - difficulty scrolling etc).
If my suggested functionality existed no-one need use it if they don’t wish to. They can open up their Dorico file with one version - and possibly only one flow per performance unit - and continue as they have before.
Ha ha! You make a valuable point. But you can’t blame those who realise that to find a place in the next development cycle one must speak up at the start of it (recognising that some work may have started which wasn’t included in version 4).
Is the excellent distillation of power present in version 4’s Library menu and Library Manager - and the existence of editors which are popouts instead of separate screens - reason to reconsider whether Dorico needs its five modes?
I put forward this suggestion as part of my suggestion to have a version view and flow view (they can’t be called views if there are page and galley views - I just can’t think of another word right now!). If one has to be first in the right mode, then in page view or galley view - then in version or flow “view” - and then in one tab and not another tab - the number of possible ways of dividing things can become too many!
I am not sure if there is a reason but it seems that most pro apps have a kind of one window approach to work.
Could engrave mode instead be some button called “position lock” - or whatever - hopefully even if I don’t have the right term for it I have said enough to make what I am suggesting clear.
Forgive me Edd if until you provide some kind of reasoning for your view I consider you to not yet have said anything.
I am not saying your view is wrong - I believe I am open to having my mind changed - I didn’t categorically say that modes be got rid of - I suggested that it might be a time for re-evaluation. I can’t demonstrate that I have an open mind until people respond to the REASONING behind my suggestions).
Can you not see that you need to say more to be helpful?
Adding the words “Greatest respects to you” to the front of your post isn’t necessary (or even honest?) - you are free to say why even EVALUATING THE EXISTENCE of modes is an absolutely terrible idea if you think it is - but you need to explain why.
I don’t use the Play Mode. I think they should just call it MAKE NOISES, get rid of the mixer, key editor and VST Rack. General MIDI will do for me. THX that will improve your fundamental core software principles that you’ve worked on for the last 8 years.
…Is basically what you’re saying about Engrave mode. I don’t wish to cast aspersions, but my perception of you is you like DAWs and are not that bothered about the finery of musical engraving, so it is quite natural you wouldn’t necessarily use Engrave mode enough to make it worth it to you…
Why does my overall outlook relate to my suggestion?
And why all the more do you let it affect your response when you say it is only an impression?
Why must users of Dorico be EITHER engrave mode junkies or DAW people?
In what way does my suggestion (which again I point out was a SUGGESTION to reconsider modes) a danger to engraving features (my post began with highlighting the new Library menu and library manager - do those words suggest that I am an anti engraving person?).
I’ll add some further positive thoughts to you - in my opinion, Engrave mode is the best thing to happen to any music notation program, ever. Never before have we had this kind of control and tools in a music notation app. A bit more work on it and we will have InDesign for music. It is absolutely essential IMO
I think you misunderstand Edd - is it your impression that I want to remove the engrave features of Dorico? If so that is not what I am suggesting - I am SUGGESTING that it may not be necessary for Dorico to have five modes any more - and that engraving features could be accessed with an on off option.
I’m trying to be nice about it - what I’m saying is that you may not see the value of engrave mode, which is only natural if you don’t use it much (“why do I have to have a whole mode just to move a dynamic or insert a system break?”). IMO it has enormous value
(P.s I was being polemical - I like Play mode, and have recently been using some of the automation features - mainly for a bit of fun really. I frequently use Logic and Mainstage, and have worked in Protools. Nnuendo, Cubase, Cubasis. I have a few of the big VST libraries. I just don’t use any of it to compose, especially)
If you guys don’t like the suggestions made so far - and would prefer that the thread didn’t stray into criticisms of those suggestions - why not make a suggestion for Dorico 5?
I wonder Tantacrul’s opinion with version 4 , for me obviously i am truly hoping there’s no need to have too many editing tabs, write and engraving can be just one function by maybe having lock and unlock button only
You mean the guy making a living designing one of the competing notation apps? I’m certain he’d have something to say, but I’m not sure I’d care for it…
Um, have you followed the MuseScore 4 development at all since he became head of design? I’ll be charitable and just say it bears a strong resemblance to another program.
