I have been working extensively on a solo piano part and making sure the markings are immaculate and assuming this would be replicated in the full score.
As you can see in my piano part I have my phrase represented as thus:
Obviously I wish to avoid double handling these phrasing marking… as its extremely time consuming as you can appreciate. Can anyone offer any insight to this inconsistency?
Unfortunately there’s no way around this, Amanda: because the spacing, size, proportions etc. of the music is different between the full score and the part layout, you will need to make adjustments to the shapes of slurs independently in each layout.
But what about enharmonic equivalents ? I went though and changed a lot in the piano score, only to find again it was not reflected in the full score…? Should I have been better off changing this in the full score FIRST before adjusting this in the solo piano part?
But what about enharmonic equivalents ? I went though and changed a lot in the piano score, only to find again it was not reflected in the full score…? Should I have been better off changing this in the full score FIRST before adjusting this in the solo piano part?
I’m afraid in the specific case of changing enharmonic spelling you would have been better off changing them in the full score: changes in the full score are propagated to all layouts, but overrides made in the layout don’t propagate back to the full score. Sorry!
OK, as we have discussed before, implementing changes in the full score such is CPU taxing working in that PAGE VIEW mode. You are aware of how large my score is so you would know why this is an important question.
So what about GALLEY VIEW then since working in individual parts is not an option? Will this still make the change effective in parts layout? Or is this strictly FULL SCORE changes only?
OK, as we have discussed before, implementing changes in the full score such is CPU taxing working in that PAGE VIEW mode. You are aware of how large my score is so you would know why this is an important question.
So what about GALLEY VIEW then since working in individual parts is not an option? Will this still make the change effective in parts layout? Or is this strictly FULL SCORE changes only?
That’s useful to know, I thought everything was layout specific both ways. Does this apply to anything other than enharmonic spelling as well? I know that you have future plans for these operation, but it’s useful to know the status quo.
The other thing that I’ve not got my head round is when a player features simultaneously in multiple score layouts.
What’s the official line on what happens when an enharmonic change is made in a score layout. Do other score layouts adopt the enharmonic changes or not?
I would have to test this to be sure, and I’ve not done so, but I believe it is correct that when you set the enharmonic spelling in a score layout, the property is set with no specific context, so it will apply everywhere, i.e. in all other layouts, both score and part types. But when you set the enharmonic spelling in a part layout, the property is set with the specific context of the current part layout only.
a bit of an old thread but just wanted to know if in DORICO 2, changing the enharmonic spelling of a note in a part changes also the enharmonic spelling of the note in the Full Score layout.
No, it still works the other way around: changing the spelling in the score updates the spelling in the part, but changing the spelling in the part doesn’t change the spelling in the full score.
For what it’s worth, I would regard this as a feature rather than a limitation. In most cases, you’d want the enharmonic spelling from the score to be inherited by the parts, but then you may also want to tweak the parts to change spelling for the individual players, just as you may want to change e.g. note positioning and other layout elements.
