Hi guys,
We’ve been playing with the new Condensing feature in Dorico, and applying it to custom renamed instruments in a particular score. We have renamed 4 horn instruments so that they appear in the score as below (with condensing switched off):
Horn 1 in F
Horn 2 in F
Horn 3 in F
Horn 4 in F
When we switch condensing on however, the names of all 4 horns still show as above (albeit on a single stave). Is there any way to rename the condensed stave name so that when condensing is switched on the name appears as ‘Horns 1.2.3.4 in F’?
Many thanks!
Wes
Try renaming all the instruments to just “Horn” and let Dorico add the numbers itself.
Hi Rob, thanks for the reply. Whilst this does indeed work (and is the default naming behaviour), we would ideally like the scores to be named as:
Horn 1 in F
Horn 2 in F
…as opposed to…
Horn in F 1
Horn in F 2
Of course it isn’t a deal breaker, but would be great if this were possible to change.
I don’t think there is a way to get the condensed staff labeled “Horn 1,2,3,4 in F”.
FWIW, I would like this too. I’m away and don’t have access to Dorico or any of my notation books, but I was taught the player number should follow the instrument name, not the modifier. In addition to his Horn example, I generally use Clarinet 2 in Bb, Trumpet 3 in C, etc. so it would be great to support this type of naming.
Yes, a big +1. I always end up renaming these manually.
Additionally, I would love to see an option to automatically place the transposition under the instrument in the score. This is very common - see Gould pg 509 example c), Schirmer pg 80 below,
and Boosey pg 11.
On pg 17 Boosey explicitly states, “Long names should be split onto two lines (eg before ‘in Bb’).” I’ve just been editing the names to get this, but it would be great to do it automatically.
The UE style guide also clearly shows the instrument number immediately after the instrument name (before the transposition) in the parts as well.
It would be great to have options under Layout Options/Staves and Systems/Staff Names to allow for these configurations automatically as they are very common and are the house style of many respected publishers. Thanks for considering!
Just to acknowledge this thread and say that we have these issues on our backlog for future implementation.
Sorry for the (very!) delayed reply Daniel, I’ve only just seen your response! Great to hear that this is in the plans for future implementation, thanks a lot.