Issued regarding the behavior of the Ped. has been discussed here before - however I didn’t understand the CC64 workaround. The headline text of this message - which is my situation now - is a quotation from a comment to that post but no answer has been given regarding. Is there a solution to the Ped. being dismissed after the repeat sign now in Dorico 4.1?
Thanks very much for your help.
Cheers - Rami.
You shouldn’t write a single pedal line that continues through a repeat ending. Dorico doesn’t chase pedal lines through repeats.
Thanks very much for your reply.
I have discussed with a prospective performer who is a renounced musician and pianist and he requires a volta repeat - why? simple enough to turn less pages in live performance. Kindly advise the person in charge to fix the situation. I’m sure you’d understand my point.
Thanks again.
It’s fine to use a repeat, of course, but if you want the pedaling to play back in Dorico, then you need to have a new pedal line at the start of the repeated section. If your performer is happy with the notation of a single pedal line spanning the entire repeat structure, then by all means write your piece that way, though there is considerable room for ambiguity in that kind of notation. The important thing is that the performer understands your intention, of course.
Thanks again, Good point though - In fact I was using the Ped. dashed line from the beginning of the piece in order to show the Ped. retakes which without that line - will not be shown -
( I have tried ) but then perhaps this is not the solution and its better to simply add Ped. retakes locally where desired…
Regarding the question @ hand - adding a new Ped. line underneath an existing one to hold throughout the repetition - if I understood you correctly - All I can say is that pianists don’t need the sound which Dorico produces - but I do - because I can upload it than with the score via screen recorder and present it to whoever… and if suddenly the Ped. is stopped than it hearts the way the music sounds and I agree that the idea to add another Ped. line underneath the existing one will create ambiguity for no apparent reason - yet if the way the software works requires this kind of ambiguity to achieve a result - than I believe that someone in Dorico should give this her or his attention and solve the problem. Repeats are very common and there is no reason for the Ped. to disappear due to repetition. It doesn’t happen in Sibelius as I was told and I am sure Dorico can work this one out.
If I misunderstood you than please accept my apologies.
Regards - Rami.
I’m sure the Development Team could work it out, but should they for just one or two users when a programming solution would be as complicated as this one sounds? If you could show us a snippet of the actual music or a test file to illustrate the precise challenge where the difficulty occurs, perhaps some of us could think of a solution, perhaps hiding a pedal marking or extending sounds in Play mode; but I admit I am still not clear enough what you are trying to achieve to offer a specific work-around.
What am I trying to achieve… a simple Volta repeat with all values in the repeated section to remains unchanged, check dspreadbury 1st answer. Now if you don’t find it peculiar what can I say. Surely only one or two users in the music world are using repeats… why bother.
Perhaps it would help to remember that they are working on a comprehensive solution for 1st endings etc. — which involves a lot more types of things than just pedal lines.
The problem you seem to describe is not with the function of the repeats per say but with the continuation of pedaling through them. That is what seems a rare situation, but unless you can let us see (that portion of) the Dorico file (as Leo said in your other post) we cannot offer much help.
m 72-73;74
Thanks very much - sorry for my tone. will send in private.
Thank you for letting me see (and listen to this). I gather from listening and rereading your earlier posts that the Pedal (particularly in the case of the very long instance in the upper piano) is for ambience and that the problem you discover with Dorico’s realization occurs in measure 63 when the music jumps back.
Since the resonance in the very high notes of Pno 1 just before measure 63 (at least in HALion playback) do not seem to take much advantage of the Ped, I tried a retake on the first note of 63, but that did not work. When I split the Ped entirely, starting a new Ped at 63 (for both instruments, actually) I think I got as close to the sound you were aiming for as Dorico can at present. I was unable to get the Ped glyph in parentheses to simulate visually a continuation.
What you may decide to do once you have finished and polished your piece is to duplicate the flow and use the duplicate flow create whatever work-around you can use to produce an audio file to your liking (or near liking), keeping the original flow to print for performers.
I do understand now what you are trying to achieve with your notation, and I applaud you for it. At the same time, your use of continuous pedaling is currently a very rare use case, and I doubt the Development Team will have it near the top of their to-do list in the near future.
Again, thank you for sharing your piece with me. I will wait in case you have any question or reply but then I will erase your file to keep it secure.
1 Like
Thanks very much Derrek for the time you took to try help me solve my problem here and for your wonderful attitude towards my request , I thank you for all that you have said.
I’ll see when the times come - how to approach it.
Thanks again - so very much.
Cheers - Rami.
1 Like
Curiously in the piece I am currently engraving for my composer colleague the pedal is held down for very long periods and spans several sets of 3 times repeated repeats. I have retakes at the start of the repeats, not a split. This use case is not that rare in modernist works. How I hit this was that it seems to work great so that I never even thought about and then suddenly in the middle of a repeat section near the end the pedal just cuts out. Had me stumped for hours.
And… the directive at the start of the piece is “only release pedal after third repeat in all cases”. This makes perfect sense in the context of the piece. I suppose that can’t be done in Dorico playback.
So it seems I have to have pedal starts at each repeat, is that so? It’s odd that it almost works with retakes, but then falls to bits. Strange.
The issue is that Dorico doesn’t “unwind” the pedal line when it unwinds the repeats, so the pedal line will stop once its written rhythmic duration has been played, without taking into account the repeat structure.
It’s weird that it carks it at some seemingly random, but deterministic, point in the repeat, and only after several repeats where it worked. That’s why I was puzzled, exacerbated by the fact that the pedal behaviour was unknown to me. Is that in the manual, out of interest?
Probably not, no. Not absolutely every single subtle behaviour of the software is documented in the Operation Manual.
Obviously, but when people hit this it is very puzzling, and may I suggest non obvious, and for sure it will come up again. It’s not a rare notation for modernist works. Certainly had me stumped, and the random point at which this fails to unwind gave me no clues.
@Lillie_Harris could you add it to your infinite queue? A para on pedal line playback and repeats would be great, with the explanation about unwinding.
Now that I know about this I can edit the CC64 track in Cubase no problem.
I’ll consider it.