Hello, good afternoon. Proofreading is truly a super useful tool. Bravo 
– In my writing, I usually treat the double bar not only as a way to clearly mark different sections of the piece, but also as a kind of reset for previous indications. In other words, for example, after a double bar, I reinsert all the dynamics again so that the performers don’t have to look back many measures to find out what dynamic they’re in. Since Proofreading always flags “dynamic is repeated”, I wonder if there’s a way to configure this specific warning so that it doesn’t flag it. Thanks in advance.
1 Like
Thanks for your feedback. We’re trying to avoid adding a plethora of options to control how Dorico’s proofreading checks work in detail. But we’ll think about this and look at some published music to see whether the convention you follow appears to be more broadly used. (I confess it’s not something I am conscious of in the music I read, but my daily musical diet is admittedly not hugely varied.)
3 Likes
Thank you, Daniel, for the feedback and the quick response. I appreciate your attention and will wait to hear back. I also confess that I’m not sure whether it’s something I developed over the years or if it’s actually a more or less widespread convention. What I do know is that, in rehearsals, it does save a lot of time. Thanks again.
Pending an ad hoc implementation, it would be fantastic to have a proofreading function that checks for the presence/absence of accidentals for tied notes across system breaks.
The process of checking the accidentals at every system change, especially for large-scale projects, is lengthy and error-prone.
Nevertheless, Dorico 6 is a fantastic update.
1 Like
Are you requesting a check for missing written accidentals (which I think of as a French publisher practice of a certain era) or for invisible lack of accidentals that would affect playback?
Dorico should have an option to restate accidentals on tied notes that cross a system break, as it’s a very common convention. And it would indeed be helpful also to flag up cases where that’s not the case – as it will be in 100% of cases at the moment, unless you take steps to manually set the property on the notehead in Engrave mode.
2 Likes
Some day I can see an optional check for parallel 5ths and 8ths… (yikes! Did I mention that?)
1 Like
Yeah, the “Dynamic is redundant” entry is also the one most annoying to me.
In rehearsal, when I say “Let’s start at letter B” or “Let’s start at the double bar at measure 78”, I don’t want everyone to look out for the closest dynamic. That’s why I restate them there.
Now, I don’t say that Dorico is wrong in bringing this issue up. But in my simple march for wind band Dorico has found more than 80 (!) such errors, and only 5 of them were issues that I really would want to change.
5 Likes
I wonder if enclosing the cautionary dynamic in parentheses would stop it from displaying that, if that doesn’t make things look too fussy.
For now I am quite happy with it now I have used it a few times. An excellent tool to run additional checks when nearing the end of input, then turn off.
dspreadbury explains my request exactly in the next post.
I’ve just finished engraving a contemporary work of enormous complexity and instrumentation, and this option would have been a godsend!
Hi, Daniel!
I just had a quick look around and found plenty of examples for dynamics being reinserted at the start of a new section.
This is a march that starts in forte, and after the intro all fortes are reinserted:
This is the beginning of a pop piece. Same thing, after the intro the mezzoforte is reinserted:
All examples are from the publisher Rundel, which is AFAIK the biggest publisher in Germany for wind band music and one of the biggest in Europe.
(Please note that in both examples the new section starts with a repeat bar, but it does not necessarily have to be that way. Could also be a double bar line.
2 Likes
Nevertheless in both examples the reinsertion is necessary.
In the first example – the condensed score – several instruments join the upper staff at the pickup. And in the second example (and the lower staff of the first) the dynamic is mandatory if the repeated region doesn’t end with the same value.
I frequently insert repeated dynamics at a new section but generally only when an instrument has new material (rather than similar material that would be expected to remain the same).
This proofreading is quickly becoming a big hairy monster? For anything it finds, there are exceptions … but then music notation is like that, isn’t it?
Have to manually do something repeatedly? so want it automated. Then once it is automated, we want manual controls over it…
1 Like
In the end it’s an incredibly well-implemented, genius feature; and I can easily live with the itches.
4 Likes
I agree Daniel!
I also agree, and in my opinion this proofreading should be taken as “There might be an inconsistency. Take a look” rather than “There is a mistake. Fix it!”
3 Likes