It’s Dorico that tries to make everything automatic and it does a brilliant job most of the time. The problem is that if you have to do something that doesn’t fit within the ambit of what the team has anticipated, things can be difficult (Daniel has acknowledged this). Obviously there is always going to some outré notation that one can’t expect to be easily accommodated but when unexceptional things in mainstream literature are difficult to replicate, it’s frustrating.
I can’t speak for other people, but I would rather the development team worked on things where there are no workarounds - e.g. condensing and part extraction for section players with divsis.
Who cares if this takes 5 seconds to work round (which is an over-estimate IMO) if you save 5 hours somewhere else in the complete process?
I completely disagree with this: I’d like the team to get the architecture and the basics right. Generally of course they’re to be commended for ambition but then there are these silly limitations. They’re also the kind of things that tend to hang around for years.
It’s worth remembering that a lot of the workarounds (for all kinds of things) don’t work in Dorico Elements. I only have to use Elements at all because of the licensing restrictions for Pro but lots of people (while not being entitled to expect all the features of Pro) have to put up with these annoyances all the time. The other thing is that when the basics aren’t covered, it’s going to annoy a lot of beginners and newcomers. The fact that some of the most regular posters in this forum seem completely unable to empathize with these people (like an adult who’s forgotten what it was like to be a child) doesn’t help.
For me the degree to which workarounds are unnecessary is the measure of the quality of notation software.
In Pro, all that needs to be done is ungroup the dynamics when one needs dynamics on both sides of a staff. You type p dolce <, ungroup and move p dolce above with the properties panel. To move a dynamic mark after that, yes, one needs engrave mode, but if it’s just a modifier to a hairpin, it will position itself under the hairpin. I have never had to use text, but I admit that is in Pro.
If every Elements user had their own “must have” missing feature added to it, there would be no different between Elements and Pro.
Without going down the “licensing issues” rabbit-hole, it’s your choice how you make the trade off between the money cost of Pro, and the time cost of the limitations of Elements (or even SE).
You don’t appear to have read my post very carefully.
This is not about me. I have Dorico Pro and Dorico Elements; I can look after myself. All I’ve done is suggest that a couple of basic functions should perhaps be reconsidered (1) because they don’t seem to work particularly well and (2) because they’re a problem for people for people with Elements alone and those that are not spending hours a day working with Dorico.
As I say, certain voices in this forum show a distinct lack of empathy.
I’d rather not think we were judging each other’s motives by what little we post here.
@Rob, I have both, Elements and Pro. I use Elements on the road with my laptop and try to get things done there too.
@Claude: p dolce is not necessarily a dynamic. If you play an instrument, it is also suggesting a sound quality, like a colour. There are things in creative processes, which do not fall into strict categories (even if people would like it that way).
I’m not sure why one can possibly deduce from my post why I don’t know what dolce means
Nevertheless, here is a gif that shows what I mean:
All I was trying to say is that I generally keep those indications on either side of the staff, but that one of them can be placed elsewhere afterwards if one wishes. That is simply the method I use and it is hardly difficult. It is important however that one clicks on the screen after ungrouping, so that only the intensity marking is selecting when clicking on it again, otherwise the hairpin will move with the intensity marking.
It’s arguable that the 18th century “piano” and “dolce” were just synonyms - depending to some extent on the composer’s native language.
Of course. Doux and dolce are exact translations, and they are equivalent in baroque music. But it’s also true that there is a shift later on and dolce acquired a more abstract meaning, as you know. Certainly, a fine clarinet clarinet player in 19th century orchestra repertoire can play close to forte and still get that inexpressible “dolce” thing going. That word is discussed a lot in my wife’s cello studio with her students; especially when dealing with Brahms.
Back to the topic…
At dynamics, the texts are sometimes too long (as mentioned above).
The obstacle is little space (a narrow section).
For others, it is crossing the side frame. Here, however, hairpins are automatically broken, but texts are not.
The solution would be to be able to display the dynamics in a single-line or two-line way, of course with respect for the page frame.
Another solution (implemented in Sibelius a long time ago, and discussed here in another thread some while ago) would be a “keep bars together” option - i.e. the “opposite” of a system break.
There is usually some way to cast off the score which avoids the issue.
One of Dorico’s biggest weaknesses right now is general lack of flexibility (or even control) of vertical elements.
The dynamics is one thing. Ordering of multiple simultaneous playing techniques is another.
Inability to use newlines in tempo text is another.
Poor vertical stacking of certain elements is another (For instance, harmonic “bubbles” go above octave lines, which is just terrible)