When the conductor calls out, “Start at measure 47,” what is the player with the altered staff supposed to do? In this case Rehearsal Marks (close together) would be far more useful than measure numbers.
1 Like
It’s an ossia staff, so that player will have both the “normal” and independent time signatures.
Oh! In that case I wouldn’t think you need an extra staff or independent meters at all! Just write “quasi 2/4” in text above the passage, and the player will understand.
The longer I think about it, the less I understand why you need this ossia staff?
Should it sound like a 2/4? I agree with @Mark_Johnson. Maybe also work with accents to mark the 2/4.
If it should sound like a 6/8, the ossia staff is actually dangerous.
Is it for “educational” purpose, to make it easier for the player? If players count in different meter it becomes easily a bit shaky. If it is conducted, it’s even more complicated. Maybe don’t underestimate percussionists?
Folks, thanks for the ideas and advice, but I really do know exactly what I want here. The drum groove overlays a 2-feel on top of 6/8 and 9/8 patterns in the orchestra. It’s not as simple as “sounds like 2/4” or that the player will just understand. I’m fairly experienced in knowing how I want to notate these ideas. I just need the software to have the capability to do what I want, and was hoping someone might be able to point me to the technical ways to accomplish it.
Anyway, 8 hours into this process, I have found a way at least to get the meters as I need them, without measure numbers appearing mid-measure. I’ve found that deleting the global signatures in some passages (where I need the simultaneous meters in the ossia), wahich also deletes the barlines, and then adding back only barlines keeps the numbering at actual beginnings of measures. The remaining problem is that in some cases two measures are counted as one, so my measure count loses a number here and there. My solution will be to manually (I don’t know how yet, but I suspect with system text) add back measure numbers in the form of 17a, 17b, etc.
I just tried again.
This way I don’t get a mess with the barnumbers in page view, or engrave mode (galley view doesn’t count)
- Set 6/8 for all staffs
- Set independent 2/4 for the ossia
- add independent time signature changes (9/8, 6/8, …)
Curious, why is that? Because measure numbers only typically appear at the start of systems?
I don’t know.
If you turn bar numbers for every bar on, the pages are correct and will follow the x/8 bars.
In galley view there will be some doublicated numbers inside a bar.
@Nukkul Ah, I see! But here’s the really scary thing I noticed: If you turn on bar numbers for every measure and view the score, the numbers correspond to whichever staff is at the top of the score! When I go into setup mode and reverse the order of two different staves/instruments, each with independent time signatures, the measure numbers are completely different depending upon the staff order. This seems to get more and more bizarre!
I tried my solution from above with a full score, and i have clean barnumbers.
Just select all staffs (excpept the ossia staff) in step 3.
barnumber ossia.dorico (691.3 KB)
Is your ossia staff a real one? I can’t recreate your problem. Maybe a cutdown version would be helpful.
Ah, yes, this works! In my test version, I did use two real staves. In my project, since the alternate-meter staff is an ossia staff it should be fine. Although it’s still quite odd that the measure numbers change according to the top staff when using real staves.
I’m wondering, now, if I will have to go though the entire movement and remove ALL time signatures, and then start from scratch. That’s going to be a BIG job considering how slow the processing is. Perhaps if I extract the movement as a separate flow and do it there, and then reimport it, it will be more efficient.
Thanks!
Sidenote, @Nukkul : Did you notice that in galley view the system track at the top no longer coincides with either meter?
Even with the workaround, I think it’s something for the development team to continue to develop.
Yes, but what should Dorico follow? There are no fixed time signatures. only independent once. So it stays counting in 6/8. I know it’s not nice and it would be better, if you could manipulate it somehow. But in the end, if you write and create something like this (with some kind of workarounds), it feels logical. At least you can manipulate the written bar numbers to stay correct. Just turn on number in every bar and you have some kind of system track numbers.
I’ve made a note to review explanations of/warnings around independent time signatures and bar numbers as-and-when I can.
2 Likes
@Lillie_Harris Thank you!
@Nukkul Yes, I’m with you. Ideally we would be able to assign one set of signatures as the “regular” set, and then everything else as “independent”. But until that’s possible, I agree that your solution is the most elegant.
Hello all,
Just a quick note after having worked with this issue for a while: It’s all still a mess and I’m just now going back and removing all the independent time signatures. Once I put everything into place, I started to look at the parts. All of the rehearsal numbers are blank because the measure numbers don’t line up. Thus, I have a bunch of empty square boxes with no numbers in them. Dorico’s automatic casting off does not understand where a measure ends and another begins, so it breaks measures across systems all over the place. Finally, the independent measure numbers are inconsistent when working with grand staves and choirs and their barlines: some barlines are drawn across choirs and others break barlines between those staves. I understand that Dorico is doing its best to make sense of things, but there are just far too many manual fixes needed to make it worth the effort.
I only offer this update to let others know what’s at stake if you want to go down this path!