I’d like to suggest a “harmony proofreading” feature that checks written notes against the chord symbols / chord track and flags potential clashes or inconsistencies (e.g., strong dissonances, bass notes not matching the indicated inversion, lines that avoid chord tones, etc.).
Ideally, this could:
Show a list of “harmony issues” and let us jump through them
Use configurable rules (strict classical vs. more tolerant jazz/pop)
Work together with a color mode (suggested from my other feature Idea) that shows chord tones vs. non‑chord tones
This feels very much in line with Steinberg’s motto “Creativity. First.” because it would reduce mechanical proofreading and let us focus more on musical decisions.
Not a comment about the content of your idea, but simply an observation that —to borrow rather loosely from de Vries’ character’s line often (mis)attributed to Hemingway — I believe the full, if implicit, motto is Creativity. First. Proofread. Second.
aha, I love that! “Creativity. First. Proofread. Second.” feels a little too accurate for anyone who’s ever chased down a rogue non‑chord tone for transposing instruments at 2 AM.
And honestly… there should always be a Third Step: Publish the thing! Because that’s the real goal, right?
If this kind of harmony‑proofreading tool would help you get from idea → clean score → published music a little faster, feel free to drop a +1.
It’s not easy. You can have a chromatic run over any chord. Chromatic approaching notes. Passing tones. Passing chords. Intermediate little chord progressions under the “roof” of a chord. Poly chords. Upper structure chords with changing modes. Proof reading had to analyze the the whole construction even with rhythmic structure to recognize where the target notes are. And all that depends on the style the track is written in.
I agree with @Saxer There are just so many variables! And it doesn’t even account for the composer’s intention. Non-chordal notes could be intended; not a mistake. Don’t forget that music theory and analysis are how we describe what a composer wrote. It is not a rulebook as to right or wrong composition (although it may indeed serve as a guideline to what we should write)!
Even proofreading for consecutives – which I would love to see – would flag up countless intentional instances in music such as Debussy or RVW; and it would have to identify doubling parts as ‘not a problem’ to avoid filling up with ‘false positives’.
There are many use cases for this feature — otherwise it wouldn’t have come to mind. It’s obviously helpful for classical composers and orchestrators, but it applies just as well to pop, jazz, and anyone dealing with strict harmony, and other non‑chord tones that could be automatically classified.
The harmony‑proofreading option could simply be disabled by default for those who don’t want it, but I’m sure many of us would find it genuinely useful. I’m optimistic the team will explore some version of this idea.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts — I appreciate it.
The forum is here for sharing ideas, and all of us are just offering feedback as people who actually use Dorico and Steinberg products every day.
I’m genuinely curious what features you see as higher‑priority on the roadmap. Not small tweaks, but the bigger items you think should come first. My suggestion isn’t something I want to argue about, but harmony and chord tools are a pretty central part of music, so I figured it was worth putting on the table.
Either way, no hard feelings — let’s leave it here. I trust the Dorico team to weigh everything and decide what’s most important.
Of course you are welcome to express your desire for features here. We all are.
To ask what features I see as more important mistakes somewhat what I am saying. Were I to name a feature, I would be doing just what you have done, asking for my desires to be placed above others’ and above what the Development Team has next on the drawing board. I want to see what the Team has next on their list of improvements to the program, which does, of course, take what folks discuss here into consideration as they think appropriate.
Derrke, I don’t think it’s very helpful to dismiss a suggestion by saying there are “more important features” without naming any. Anyone could reject any idea that way.
If you have specific higher‑priority features in mind, I’m genuinely interested to hear them. If not, that’s totally fine — we can just leave it here.
Either way, once again, no hard feelings. Let’s close the discussion and trust the Dorico team to decide what belongs on the roadmap.
For me, the problem here is that it is almost impossible to devise such ‘rules’ regardless of the ease or otherwise of technical implementation within Dorico. It might be simple enough to identify bass lines which apparently contradict the indicated inversion, and perhaps a few other basics, but once you step into wider music theory you soon get lost, as others have indicated.
What are ‘strict classical rules’ for example? Palestrina, Bach. Mozart, Chopin, Mahler? How does Gesualdo fit in with the ‘rules’ of his time in the late Renaissance? I’m not even sure that jazz/pop is more ‘tolerant’ than, say, Ravel.
I understand that this is an honest suggestion, and should be welcomed as such, but music can’t easily be defined by rules. Can you imagine the noise in this forum if an attempt was made?
