Just. Wow.
1 Like
yes of course 
… waiting for the release, and been using the buggy version 4 with so many crashes here lol
If “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” I imagine that would tell you his true opinion of Dorico then.
6 Likes
I just expressed the following in a private exchange. When people are participating in a thread:
1.We should always express our disagreement with reasoning.
2.If we like much of what a person is suggesting we should reveal that - not just what we disagree with (within reason) - if it will help to reveal the attitude with - and context in which - we are responding - unless we really disagree entirely.
3.When we are in a thread such as the one we are in now - if we imagine a suggestion to be level 1 - and a REASONED response to it being level 2 - and a REASONED response to that response also being level 2 (any non-reasoned response is out of order) we must recognise that a response to a level 2 response which isn’t related to the original suggestion is level 3 - it is outside the bounds of the thread.
So - in the name of that - I ask that the discussion return to suggestions for Dorico 5.
Please refrain from unilaterally rewriting forum etiquette rules.
16 Likes
maybe “inspired” is more softer term :),
I learned that sometimes we must agree to disagree on something.
1 Like
Getting kinda off topic now I guess, but I’m curious what term the Steinberg legal department will use once MS4 is released, LOL
3 Likes
You’re right Fred. You’re off topic - back to suggestions for Dorico 5 (or reasoned responses to them).
One quick thought specifically about keeping track of “what music is in a particular flow” that’s available in Dorico as it stands currently: flow names and flow titles, whilst the same by default, can be different.
You can, for instance, keep multiple versions of the same flow (piece of music, say) in the same project, keep their “official flow titles” the same (as in, the title of the piece of music as you would want it shown in a programme) but change their flow names to “v1 no brass”, “v2 divisi strings” etc etc, to remind yourself why that alternative exists and allow easier identification later.
I don’t mean that to be an “official line” on “expected usage”, nor do I make any comment about potential changes in future versions. Merely an example of one way someone might use the app’s existing functionality to suit a particular workflow.
As you all were
6 Likes
That’s a very helpful contribution to the suggestions I have made above Lillie thank you. And your suggestion also has relevance to the ideas put forward by @snakeeyes021 .
I think they understood long before the Dorico world began—better than any of us, in fact. And in the intervening 5 years, they’ve heard from thousands of users on the forum and social media. So not only do I think they understand, I suspect that their scope of understanding far exceeds even the tensions that you personally experience and highlight.
At what point did I criticize anything that you wrote? All I pointed out was that the team has acknowledged (from the very beginning) that flows can be used for anything from whole symphonies all the way down to one note musical examples tucked into footnotes. This was well documented in the early diaries, has been discussed on the forum non-stop with new users for five years, and has been covered in interviews with Daniel as well.
Surely you have a thicker skin than your complaint would otherwise wish to convey. If not, I don’t know what to say other than ‘welcome to the internet; people disagree with you here.’ lol.
For the record, I think these are perfectly fine ideas. I’m all for more options for end users.
Thank you @Romanos for your clarifications.
I didn’t say that you criticised what I suggested - I said that you didn’t engage with it at all. I think that if not doing so will give the impression that you think that I am completely off track that it would be preferable that you clarified the context in which you are making comment.
I hope that my only addition below to what I have already said helps to clarify my intentions and the reason for the way in which I expressed the suggestions I have about flows.
The reason I did not think that my trying to communicate the tension with the current potential uses of flows was out of turn was because I believe that if the Dorico team had clearly seen this tension from the start it would not have been difficult for them to cater to it from the get go - by ensuring that flows were OPTIONALLY formatting units. This is all that would have been needed for the user to have at least begun to use flows as composition modules - even if future versions needed to provide greater infrastructure to make the use of many flows viable long term. So I therefore don’t accept the line that my saying the things I am saying in the manner in which I am saying them is arrogance on my part.
My hope is only that an environment will exist on this forum and in the Dorico team which is honest enough - and disciplined enough - to allow criticism to be processed from others - and for people to be self-critical. In order that the contributions of both the Dorico team - and the forum - have the greatest possible result. Only when people are honest and courageous - and disciplined - in relating to each other will things work out best. Only this leads to people knowing when it’s time to speak and when it’s time to rely on the strength of another person. We may be the best mountain climber in the world - the Don Bradman of climbing - there may be a gulf between us and everyone else. However the only thing that we need to believe to end up dead is that we are the tiniest bit more able than we actually are in some area (and people who are able in some things may be deficient in other areas in a way that is startling - this is I believe the case with me) - whereas if those far inferior have an accurate view of themselves - if they know when to rely on the strengths of others - they will likely reach the top of the mountain.
You’re kidding ….
A short wish list from my film scoring/orchestration perspective:
-
Tempo marks that natively show the difference to the previous tempo as used a lot in film scoring. E.g. cue starts at 𝅘𝅥 = 120, next tempo mark should be 𝅘𝅥 = 122 (+2). A lot of fakery has to go into that currently.
-
Show bar numbers in the score above the strings with automatic spacing for them without needing to drag around staves so they fit in between
-
Instrument names on parts for transposing instruments natively showing accidentals (e.g. Clarinet in B♭ instead of Clarinet (B Flat)). The current workaround of renaming and using tokens creates problems with instrument numbering and sometimes ugly things like that
-
A notation option that allows to have Dorico draw this note length in a 4/4 by default as such:
-
Master Pages for “Last Page”
-
an option that automatically favors to put possible rests at the bottom of a page of a part before a page turn
-
Dorico being aware and preventing that long tempo or playing indications in parts at the end of staves go beyond the printing border
-
an option for two levels of bar numbers as explained here.
-
Dorico always showing the hairpin between two dynamic markings even if the cresc./decresc. is short but if needed forcing more space to draw it
-
import/export House Styles
-
and of course the all time favourites: Aleatoric Boxes, Cutaway Staves and more support for contemporary notation
23 Likes
Solid list
What do you envision being on this Master Page? I can imagine some things, but I am intrigued by what you think.
I would need it mainly for showing cue length and last edit date/time but I can also imagine quite a few other uses for last page master pages, like foot notes etc.
Thanks.
Not sure why I didn’t know this. Will save me a lot of time. However, there is still one issue. Dorico still thinks of the Horns as part of Brass. When you tell it to put system objects above Brass, it puts them above the Horms, and NOT above the rest of the brass, which I think of as a separate section. If there were an option to treat Horns as a separate section, as I said in my initial post, this would be solved.
Credits, perhaps?
Historical notes.
Performance notes.
Interesting possibilities all. I would probably put some of these on intro pages rather than at the end (at least in most circumstances) but I can understand film composers/arrangers likely have specific industry formats they have to (or prefer to) follow.