I would like to suggest a feature for a future update.
It would be very useful to include a new workspace or tab alongside Setup, Write, Engrave, Play, Print, etc., dedicated to vector graphic editing.
This would make it much easier to create scores that include custom graphic notation designed by each composer. At the moment, my workflow requires finishing the score in Dorico and then exporting it to Inkscape to create or edit vector graphics before adding them back into the score.
While this workflow is possible, it can be quite time-consuming because it requires switching between two different programs: one for music engraving and another for creating and editing graphic notation. Having basic vector drawing tools directly in Dorico would greatly streamline the process and make the software even more powerful for composers working with contemporary and graphic notation.
I am sorry for my ignorance, but, is there in Dorico anything like the “Shape designer” of Finale?. You could draw absolutely anything you could imagine, with lines, circles, freehand, etc and place it and redimension it anywhere in the score.
This is called creeping featurism. Generally not good. Dorico does one thing and one thing well. Observe that this is the long standing UNIX design philosophy also.
No. Dorico doesn’t currently have a direct equivalent to Finale’s Shape Designer. Some tasks can be accomplished with custom symbols, lines, and imported SVG graphics, but there isn’t a built-in free-form drawing tool like Finale’s.
I agree that feature creep should be avoided. However, graphic notation is still music notation. Many contemporary works require custom symbols, boxes, arrows, polygons, and other graphical elements that are specific to each score. A simple built-in shape editor would support notation, not transform Dorico into a general-purpose graphics editor.
I don’t have a strong feeling about this, but I note that Dorico also doesn’t have a built-in designer for either text fonts or music fonts; I don’t think any music notation software does, even though such fonts are essential.
It seems appropriate to me that fonts and graphical elements are all things that get created elsewhere and then used and combined in Dorico.
I don’t think fonts are quite the same. A music font is a reusable resource that is typically designed once and then used across many scores.
Importing graphics is fine when they are static. The problem is that many contemporary scores require graphics that need to be resized, repositioned, or modified repeatedly as the layout evolves. Having to switch to another application every time is unnecessarily disruptive.
“Dorico is widely used in schools, colleges and universities. It’s perfect for producing learning materials and for building an understanding of music theory.”
Not true at all, for now. Dorico does not even give Roman numerals natively (!!!). Imagine creating music analisys documents without easy Roman numerals.
And of course, the use of any kind of graphic element, designed into Dorico and freely edited is essential for producing learning materials. Finale did it and it was so powerful in this. I hope the Dorico team understands that this is not “creeping featurism”.
I understand that maybe the composers or arrangers in this forum do not need to agree to this, but I guess that teachers and scholars of music would love to have as many tools as possible into Dorico.
True – it is not natively provided. But MusAnalysis is a font that is available (from Notation Central) that can be downloaded free (though the suggested $10 is reasonable for continued support and development). So this is not really an impediment to Dorico being used in Academic settings. Finale was used in many settings without native features and was often useful (for many) if the user acquired the wonderful plug-ins that were developed by others. If you think about it, add-ons are why we have apps like Dorico, Affinity, Auto-CAD, DAWs and others instead of them being included with the operating system! (An oversimplification, I know, but it demonstrates the point!)
And on day one, someone will say, “this editor is too simplistic! I want to do X_____ but can’t! What’s the point of even having an editor if I cannot do this incredibly niche thing I just made up!!?!??!”
Jokes aside, a relatively modest way to create basic shapes, boxes and lines doesn’t feel inappropriate, with the proviso that people who need particularly niche/detailed things will need to have recourse to actual graphic design software. I’m not convinced Dorico should have to bear such a burden. I can also imagine that it would be anxiety-inducing trying to implement such a system such that it could be supported for decades into the future.
Rather than a basic shape editor, Dorico should support “smart” primitive shapes (like rectangles, boxes etc.) locked to bar/beat position and duration, and reflowing across systems. This is something that would make sense in notation software.
A minor observation. Any time someone makes a suggestion for an interesting new feature or function that is different, it is pretty likely it will be met with a chorus of voices on this forum saying why the existing methods are better, or why it can’t be done, or why it shouldn’t be done.
Now, I’m not saying I generally disagree with these responses. But in a moment of self-reflection, it’s funny to me that we so quickly become locked in our “old” ways of doing things, or become so devoted to our familiar interfaces. We already sound like multi-decade Finale users sometimes: “Don’t change anything!”
I think it’s great that people suggest new and fresh ideas. Are they always good ideas? No, but they should continue to be heard and considered. (Not that we’re the developers, anyways…)
@dan_kreider No. Its like people saying I need to do a page with an essay and photos so Photoshop ought to have word processing functions for me. It’s confusion about the core function of applications. Has nothing to do with preserving a conservative view of the ‘old’ way of doing things. Why do people expect apps to be ‘all in one’? That’s just not how software works.
Let the developers ‘finish’ Western notation first, and maybe then go on to ancillary matters or add-ons. In twenty years or so. There’s enough to develop as it is.
I absolutely agree with you. I like to know what users expect form Dorico and I like to endorse the ideas I find interesting, but I try specially not to express rejection to ideas with which I disagree.
Every user has their own needs, we must respect this.
Exactly! Even my old question about numbered notation was never answered, so I had to create my own plugin for Musescore instead. However, I do hope that as a user or customer, a decent or small input would motivate developers to consider whether it’s possible or not to implement it. At least this is the way we can connect together as a community instead of buyer-seller relation only.
