This sounds like another thing that Tantacrul could take advantage of, or perhaps I’m just not seeing the genius of it, but – can we talk about “layout numbers” for a second?
So in Setup mode on the left we have the “Players” list, which we can drag around in any order and that becomes the score order.
But on the right we have the “Layouts” list, which is independent in its order system. Maybe there are advantages of this I’m oblivious to?
Then finally within the “Layouts” list in the little “>” menu, we have a tiny thing called “No.” – turns out this is the Layout Number.
And this is important for exporting orchestral parts, because then we can export with the customary format of [part number]-[filename]-[layoutname].pdf
The trouble is that in order to get Layouts in the right order, I have to re-number each layout manually by clicking the little “>” to get to the “No.” property. Dragging the layouts around into the right order does not renumber them.
wow – nice! But that doesn’t entirely help me because I have a “percussion score” following the timpani part, and I’d like for that to be counted.
Somehow even if I drag it into the right order, that score becomes “1” and is ignored in the count… so I have to re-number all of the instruments below the score following the timpani.
Let’s say I have an opera scored for full orchestra, four singers and chorus. I also have a piano reduction. I’m going to end up with 20 or so part layouts for the orchestra, a full score layout and a vocal reduction.
The orchestral librarian wants the parts labelled 1-20, in Score order (with Flute 1 being no. 1 and Double Bass being no. 20). She’s not interested in either of the scores.
By default, I have the Full Score Layout at the top of the layouts list. By choice, I have the Vocal Score Layout between the percussion and the strings. To me, that’s where it makes most sense.
With the current system we have the flexibility for these sorts of contradictions. I’d hate to see that flexibility disappear.
Greater flexibility of score vs. part layout numbering is on my wish list as well. Also, the option to have the layout order automatically mirror the player order, and vice versa.
For me the other thing is that I typically number my score as “00” – I’m not sure if that’s left over from the Finale or Sibelius days but that’s always been traditional for me. I can’t have a Layout numbered “00” in Dorico
Getting rid of this “>” menu in the “Layouts” pane would also be amazing because editing the part number is the ONLY thing you can do in this “>” submenu. Why not just leave it right next to the Layout name instead? Why do I have to click forty “>” things to open a menu to edit a layout number?
the other thing that should be mentioned (now that this thread has returned up top) is that
– if I re-order the part and score layouts, then the numbering should be sequential irrespective of if it’s a score or a part.
For instance
Full Score (which really shouldn’t be up top as a layout, as those of us who write orchestral music just use this as a master layout for all the part and score material, but I digress --)
Conductor Score
Oboe 1
Oboe 2
Horn 1
Horn 2
Timpani
Percussion Score
Triangle
Almglocken
etc. – the “percussion score” should be automatically numbered “07” as in the sequence above.
But upon using its “renumbering” feature, Dorico would call the percussion score “02” because it’s a score and not a part layout.
Which is fair enough - a score is not a part – BUT if I want it to be counted as a part, so that a librarian hands it out at the same time as the percussion parts - then it should be sequenced in that order. And then everything else after that like 08-Triangle and 09-Almglocken and so on.
