Ok, I’m suspecting this issue is caused by some settings I changed recently - though I don’t understand why this should be the result. I’ve turned off linking dynamics when pasting, and turned on “end gradual dynamics at start of last note in selection”.
In example 1, I am attempting to go from m79 mf and end the > at the downbeat of m81. With the carat to have precise placement, and the chain starting identically for all staves, it seems like the behavior, whatever behavior that might be, should be uniform across the staves, no?
In Example 2, I have trying to have p, but as you can see, the moment I input at m85, some staves are already producing the < before I’ve set the end point at m87 for the “mf”, and again with the > at m85, some staves (but not all) are creating the hairpin prematurely - and this time, not updating to the end point at all, so all but the top staff end up super short!
As far as I can tell, these passages are functionally the same between the instruments, and yet the hairpins are inputting completely differently per stave. Some show a preliminary hairpin before I’ve input the end point, while others do not. And some are extending far, far past the carat where I put the end of the hairpin - sometimes extending super far before I’ve even input the end point!
Can anyone else confirm if this is a bug, or a function which I’m just not understanding the correct process for?
I reported this almost two years ago and found out it only happens when Link dynamics and slurs to existing items when pasting is off..
Yikes,
The automatic linking has proven to be quite a headache, as most of the music I deal with isn’t the same across every instrument all the time. It honestly wouldn’t be an issue if dynamics didn’t extend to the beat after selection, because an orchestration is frequently different and needs new dynamics at a double-bar/new phrase - but because of the “beat after selection” aspect, inputting dynamics frequently get caught auto-grouping to dynamics from an earlier phrase, which is completely different material and produces some very unintuitive and counter-productive results. And there’s no process to avoid this! Except to have then not be linked, so when that automatic grouping happens, it doesn’t propagate those irrelevant dynamics to the other staves.
But with this but, having the linking disabled means input is still broken. It appears that the only remotely reliable way to input dynamics is to do it one staff at a time, and for similar sections, make use of manual copy/paste (with auto linking off, so the groups don’t carry over and produce a mess again)?
Justin Bell
www.composerbell.com
IMDb
I have found that it’s only the combination absolute dynamic+hairpin in a single popover that does this, so I’ve learned to avoid it by doing it in smaller steps. So in your first video, with the caret across four staves on bar 79: first input just mf, Enter. Then, without moving the caret, open the popover again for the hairpin, which you should then be able to extend as expected.
Thank you hrnbouma, this does indeed seem to be the only way to do this in the way that appears to work as intended.
I, on accident, just tried to apply the carat across many staves again (out of habit), and not only did the bizarre super elongated hairpins appear, they also pushed some existing immediate dynamics around. And to boot, hitting undo DID NOT undo everything! Some dynamics were STILL duplicated and misplaced after I had undone the buggy dynamic entry, so this bug is applying effects that aren’t being registered by the application to be undone! YIKES!