Octave up/down enharmonic buglet

I’m engraving a passage that’s in octaves. The composer’s been extremely specific about the enharmonic spellings he wants, as this writing is modal. For example, given there are lots of F#s knocking around, he wants every F natural to be spelt as an E#.

I thought I’d reduce my workload in terms of manual respelling, by typing the passage once, fixing the accidentals, then copying and pasting and using octave shift to move octaves, but I’ve found this happens:

For clarity’s sake, here are the steps in the GIF:

  1. Select notes
  2. Copy
  3. Hit Q to turn on chord input
  4. Paste
  5. Shift octave using Cmd-Alt-Up/Down.

As it happens, I tried selecting the original E# and shifting that up/down an octave and the behaviour is exactly the same - I end up with an F natural.

Short of using Write>Transpose (which is a) slower and b) doesn’t currently do octaves down) is there a way that manually-adjusted enharmonic spellings could be retained, please?

Hi Pianoleo,

Are you by any chance doing this in a part? I can’t reproduce this if I’ve respelt a note in the full score, but the underlying behaviour regarding properties if different if you only have a part-specific override, and in that case, I do see the behaviour you’re experiencing.

Thanks!
Michael

Whoah! Mind blown, Michael.

The composer sent through parts (spat out of Logic, as it happens) so I’ve been typing straight into parts. It had not occurred to me that spelling in a non-transposing instrument (piano) would differ between the score and the parts. I’m going to need to proof the score very carefully.

Daniel et. al, could we possibly have a setting buried somewhere that allows us to retain spelling between score and part layouts, at least in non-transposing instruments, please?

Heh, yes I can understand the confusion but we do that so that it’s possible to have different spellings in parts than the score. As you say, it’s redundant in non-transposing parts, but it’d be rather odd for Dorico to behave differently just for that reason.

Anyway, I’ve just put in a fix for this, so if you have made any adjustments to a note’s spelling in a part, transposing by an octave (or any multiple thereof) will make sure the spelling overrides are retained.

From my point of view it’s not really a fix - in C instruments I need to ensure that I’m working in a score layout when fixing spelling, or I’m going to have to do all the work twice. Can you foresee any problems with me setting up custom score layouts for this purpose that each contain only one instrument?

Hi Pianoleo,

The fix I’ve made is to ensure spellings aren’t needlessly removed when they still make sense musically. The ability to respell uniquely in parts is intentional, so I wouldn’t be able to change that. (Adding an option is of course a possibility, but I’m afraid that’s not my call to make!)

Creating dummy full score layouts should be a viable workaround for you. I can’t think of any reason why that wouldn’t work.

Hi Mike !
I understand you are part of the wonderful Dorico’s team — although your name does not show up in bold red. I will follow your advice (which is actually the way I work) : make sure the full score looks like I want it to look in parts for non-transposing instruments. Thanks for the fix anyway !

Michael is indeed part of the development team – he’s been responsible for many wonderful parts of the program, and he’s working on fingering at the moment for the next update.