Issue with superfluous accidentals

[danielhey]

Hi,

I encountered the following issue with superfluous accidentals (naturals) in the 2nd violins:

It looks similarly ridiculous in the part:

I am pretty sure it has to do with some preceding divisi part in a different key, and I can temporarily solve it by adding an additional unisono in front of this passage - then the naturals disappear. However, when I close the file and open it, they appear again. I cannot figure out what is going on.

Any help appreciated!

Project: Konzert für Violoncello und Orchester_I+II+III_excerpt.dorico (2.4 MB)
(see bar 135ff)

[Mark_Johnson]

I am pretty sure it has to do with some preceding divisi part in a different key

Exactly. The key change back to 1♭ happens during a divisi passage, and the lower staff doesn’t get the message, so it’s still writing as if in 5♭ in the part.

You don’t actually need divisi changes to indicate „die Hälfte“, since the number of staves doesn’t change! You can remove them and just write the indications in staff text. Same with the Violin solo in bars 47–54: It isn’t really necessary to show an extra empty staff for gli altri as long as you mark „Solo“ and „tutti“ clearly.

[danielhey]

Hi Mark,

@Mark_Johnson

Exactly. The key change back to 1♭ happens during a divisi passage, and the lower staff doesn’t get the message, so it’s still writing as if in 5♭ in the part.

thanks for confirming! Then, however, I think there would be something wrong with the functionality of condensing, because it does not seem correct to me that in order for all divisi staves to catch a key change, a key change has to happen in a place where all staves are present.

What is even more weird in my case: When I place a second unison marking anywhere between the first one (bar 107) and the divisi part, the superfluous naturals in the divisi passage disappear* (at least in the score - they still appear in the second violin part). However, in the system in which the divisi starts they are still present (bars 135-139)…

(* as I wrote in my first post, only until the next opening of the file, then I have to re-input/confirm this unison)

@Mark_Johnson

You don’t actually need divisi changes to indicate „die Hälfte“, since the number of staves doesn’t change!

I know, but I like to do it this way, so that I don’t have to fiddle around with the appearance of the divisi marking (text style and placement). I think I recall that using a divisi marking this way was recommended in one other thread?!