Hello everyone. I’ve been working on a piano piece in Dorico recently and came across a few subtleties which I’m hoping you might be able to help or advise me on.
First, let me describe what I understand to be the general things in play here:
by default, dynamics apply to the whole instrument (i.e. both staves, all voices)
dynamics for individual voices can be achieved by (i) enabling independent voice playback in the Play settings and (ii) entering dynamics using the popover and Alt-Enter (if you just press Enter, they again apply to all voices)
It took me a little while to discover the last detail, but … so far so good. The remaining problem is now how to ensure the score always makes a clear visual distinction between dynamics that apply to both hands, and dynamics that apply to one hand or voice.
Gould p. 323 seems clear on the requirements: “Dynamics that apply to both hands are centred between the staves. Individual dynamics for each hand should, in the first instance, stay in the middle of the system, but move close to their associated stave.”
However, in practice, what I’ve discovered is that if a dynamic is applied to a note in the upper staff, it’s always placed centred vertically between the staves (or as close as possible), regardless of whether it’s been entered as a both-hands dynamic (Enter) or as a single-voice dynamic (Alt-Enter). That means it almost always looks like a dynamic that’s intended to apply to both hands.
Dynamics applied to notes in the lower staff appear to be placed close to the staff as expected. Is there any way to ensure the same happens for upper staff dynamics when they are explicitly entered as single voice?
It’s OK if the answer is “just move things manually in Engrave mode” but I’d like to check before assuming it is. Can anyone advise?
If the problem description isn’t clear and some musical examples would help, let me know and I’ll try to provide them.
I should add I disagree with Gould. If there is a need for different dynamics for stems notes up and stems notes down within a close visual distance to one another, I put the stems up notes dynamics above the staff as I’ve seen done in hundreds of classical publications. If you have to do like Gould suggests, then yes, I think dragging in Engrave mode is the only choice. Otherwise…
If I understand what you want, you don’t need to move them in Engrave mode. Use the Flip command (F key) to move them above or below the staff. For example, Shift-D, mf, alt-enter, then finally the F key. Yes, one extra keystroke but a whole lot quicker than moving in Engrave mode.
EDIT/UPDATE: I misunderstood the original poster’s question and didn’t check Behind Bars (Gould’s book). She does suggest dynamics in the way I mentioned.
I think I may not have been clear enough. I’m not talking about the case where there are two separate voices in a single staff, in which case obviously the dynamics for the up-stem voice go above the staff, and those for the down-stem voice go below (which Gould naturally advises in line with longstanding practice).
I’m talking about when one wants to be clear that a dynamic applies only to the right hand (upper) piano staff and not to the left hand (lower) one.
I certainly read it incorrectly (probably because there was mention of voices). My bad! After a re-read and an experiment, I now know what you mean.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a setting to change this automatically. Something that might help - at least with the automatic staff spacing - is to change one of the dynamic’s beat-relative position (via Properties). However, you would still need to then move them manually to the optimal position. And it would be troublesome if the bar falls at the start of a system as the dynamic would appear in the previous system.
I didn’t quite understand your original post either. I would put the RH dynamics above the staff and the LH dynamics below the staff. I’ve seen this in piano lesson books.
The pp in the vertical centre of the first bar of this extract clearly applies to both hands, but in the second system there are RH-specific dynamics that are placed closer to the upper staff.
Similarly in The Snow is Dancing, in the first bar of the following extract there are vertically centred dynamic markings, but from the second bar onwards we have per-hand dynamics (a LH-only pp placed above but close to the lower staff, and all the RH-only marks and hairpins below but close to the upper staff). In the very last bar we also have dynamics specifically for the lower voice of the left hand staff (placed below but close to the staff).
That’s an option but seems to be against common practice. Gould’s rationalization is that if the dynamic marks stay in the middle of the system where possible (as in the Debussy examples from my previous post), it leaves either side of the system clear for slurs, tuplet brackets and octave signs.
Not to defend Gould but this appears to be a case in which where possible isn’t (possible)! Strive for clarity where convention would otherwise be confusing!
— Jim
I’m not sure I follow your point, because the Debussy examples show how it’s (i) possible and (ii) clear, from a notational point of view. The issue is simply that Dorico doesn’t have a trivial way to make this Just Work placement-wise when dynamics for the upper staff are entered explicitly for a single hand/voice.
(BTW, the reason for original confusion of voice vs staff dynamics is that Dorico doesn’t actually distinguish between per-voice and per-staff dynamics: the latter is just a per-voice dynamic when there’s just one voice on the staff in question.)
At the end of the day, it’s now not about what’s possible but about what is the best compromise between how easy and maintainable something is to achieve in a Dorico project versus what’s best for the player reading the part. I just wanted to confirm that really was the situation and that I wasn’t missing anything (as I’d initially missed the “popup-and-Alt-Enter” subtlety when trying to get playback working).
If my previous response came over a little negative, I should add your point to Strive for clarity where convention would otherwise be confusing! is something I thoroughly agree with and I appreciate you pointing it out!
Gould states the convention should be used “where possible,” implying that there might be situations in which it may not be the best practice. The Debussy examples deviate from the “rule” – and should – for good reason. My point was simply that Gould states the convention should be used (so that the space is available for other engraving elements) unless it is not possible to clearly convey the composer’s intent. I was agreeing that this was a case in which it is more clear to do something other than the standard “rule” — that this was a case where it is “not possible.”
Sorry if I’m making a confusing mess of this!
I confess I am now more confused than before, because I don’t see how Debussy’s notation contradicts Gould’s suggestions?
“Dynamics that apply to both hands are centred between the staves.” (Debussy does this.)
“Individual dynamics for each hand should, in the first instance, stay in the middle of the system, but move close to their associated stave.” (This is exactly what Debussy does.)
“Dynamics for independent lines on the same stave should be placed at the stem end of each part.” (Maybe this is where the confusion arises, because I didn’t quote this earlier, but it’s what Gould says and it’s what Debussy does in the last bar of the extract from The Snow is Dancing shared above. In fact we can see that in the upper staff, he uses one dynamic for the whole staff, and in the lower staff, he uses a separate dynamic for the downstem 16th notes.)
I don’t believe you need to drag the dynamic in engrave mode. If you press F twice, it will position the dynamic closer to the voice to which it applies, but still in between the staves.
For example, for a dynamic attached to a voice on the upper staff, F flips it from centered to above, and another F flips it from above to below. It doesn’t restore it to being centered.
So, I said that I might be making a confusing mess of this — and, apparently, I have!
You are correct in what Gould states, in what Debussy did, and that they are not contradictory. I picked up on Gould’s use of “where possible” (from your quote) to indicate that this case was (as exemplified by the Debussy example) a place where moving the dynamics away from center is the correct thing to do — and for which Gould (in my opinion) allowed.
I have simply done a terrible job of agreeing with you!
Oh, fantastic! That’s exactly the kind of subtle trick I was hoping existed. Thank you for solving my core practical problem.
Out of curiosity, is there any way that you know of (having pressed F twice) to then bump the dynamics back to being centred again? Since further presses of F won’t do it?
