Hi. I just bought Dorico and found out one of the most
expected feature is missing…multiple player per staff…meaning (Flute 1,2 in one damn staff)
I need two voices to automaticaly split into separeted parts (Flute 1 and Flute 2)…that is meaning of “Add Selection players”.
Please can you answer me if there is some planning of this feature…?
Otherwise I am realy dissapointed, because this is most important feature for me from Dorico.
But I realize that in the first version some features are not fully working. I am glad for this great tool (textual input is realy great) and I hope, that next version will have this feature. Thx
I’m not sure why you would have considered this to be one of the most expected features of the software, given that we haven’t advertised it, and nor have I written very much, if anything, about it in any of my blog posts or elsewhere in public. It seems a little harsh to criticise Dorico for not having a feature that we never said it would have!
That said, efficiently and elegantly handling scores where instruments can share staves in a dynamic fashion is absolutely part of our plan for Dorico.
I am really sorry for my harsh criticise. I have been creating scores over 10 years and in every program excerpt Obdiv Octava Composer, Finale and LilyPond there is no way to automatically separate voice in one staff to different part. In Dorico Play mode looks like it is working for spliting voice to separate MIDI tracks. So I thought it will be chance to have this feature in Engrave mode. It is very hard to read 30-staff score with separated voices or 18-staff score. However I am looking forward to working in Dorico after some fixing updates. Thx for creating this program.
Sorry if my reply came on a little strong. We definitely have plans in this area, and once we have completed the engineering work required I believe it will be a real game-changer for producing orchestral and large ensemble scores.
You have been using the wrong programs. Was in my engraving system in 1990. Split any multi-voice/chord notation into voices. There was a merge that did the reverse. Nothing new. It will be interesting to see Dorico’s approach. It also had the separation of “contents” (music) from layout as I understand Dorico has.
Just wondering if you already have an idea how to handle this situation in Dorico. i.e. since shard staff is temporarily not supported, I can always type two flutes on the same staff and make it look as a shared staff. (That’s how I have doing in Finale.) The problem comes when I need to create parts; because it is unprofessional to give players shared parts, so how do you split the layers and create parts?
I used to copy & paste every single staff to a new document and split them using “TG Tools” in Finale, wondering if here in Dorico it is the same situation?
Is there a a way of doing this by configuration rather than copy and paste in Dorico 2? The “High Level Concepts” section in the docs has this: “Dorico provides several benefits. Chief among them is its ability to produce different score layouts that share the same musical content. For example, you can create a conductor’s score with as many instruments as possible condensed onto a smaller number of staves, a full score with each player’s music on separate staves, and an instrumental part containing only the music belonging to a specific player.” This seems to indicate a way of taking existing players/instruments and condensing them on a conductor score layout, but I’m not seeing a way of doing that. The obvious problem with copy and paste is that if you change anything, you have to do all the copies and pastes over again, or else the two “scores” are inconsistent. Thanks!
That “concepts” topic needs to be revised, as it was something I wrote prior to the first version of Dorico being released, and at the time it was planned that the feature to automatically condense multiple players onto fewer staves would be included in the first version (a good deal of work has been done on it already, but a good deal still remains to be done). In short, it’s not possible in Dorico today, but it will definitely be possible in a future version of the software – though not in Dorico 2.x.
I had already presumed that the divisi feature that was announced for and came with Dorico 2 would be This Thing… I have learned since that by divisi you mean something else than I had thought. And now you say that not even in 2.x it will be possible? That’s really frustrating because it’s the One Big Thing that is badly needed if you want to work with larger scores…
So another year of cumbersume workarounds?
I don’t work for Steinberg, and am nothing more than a user. But something tells me far less than a year.
I am also not a computer programmer. But from what I can tell, a lot of the ground-work has been laid. This ground work has allowed the Divisi part to be handled and completed in somewhat of a short time frame. As such, I feel that “condensing” will also be somewhat of a short time frame.
I think the software engineers have done good job a creating a solid foundation. And therefore it seems high level features are able to be added faster than in other programs.
Just my 2 cents. I really have NO clue what I am talking about.
Robby, can I draw your attention to Daniel’s last sentence? Not in the next year, I suspect.
Yeah, I agree PianoLeo, but I also thought it would be a lot longer for version 2 to come out.
But seeing how fast Dorico 1.0 went to 1.1 to 1.2 to Dorico Pro 2, I wouldn’t be too surprised if we saw a version 3, or a paid version 2.5 etc. around Christmas time. What I sort of read into Daniel’s post was that it wouldn’t be coming in a free update to version 2. That is me reading into things… so obviously there could be A LOT of error there.
But, I will still stand by my last sentence:
“I really have NO clue what I am talking about”
I see your point, Robby.
I do wonder if, given how long ago the “High Level Concepts” piece was written, divisi is a function that has taken the team a lot longer than just the time between 1.2 and 2.0. I mean, for all we know they could have started work on it before they started on Percussion.
It strikes me that Percussion Kit representation may have acted as a slightly-simplified test-bed for an as-yet incomplete Condense function.
Again, this is mere speculation!
And I agree with your assessment. The percussion kit development alone shows the depth of capability. If they can do it now with percussion instruments. I am sure lurking in the back office on a test machine there is the ability to do it with clarinets, etc. I am sure there is a lot more kinks to figure out, like actually printing separate parts without having to change the look from single staff to multi-staff, etc.
And like you, I am sure a lot of this was worked on before the Dorico 1.0 probably hit the market. I believe from all the blogs I read that Dorico had an extensive ground-work laid. And I believe this ground work is allowing for these “ungodly” speeds in the release of new functionality.
Again, I know NOTHING of what I speak. I am merely a fan and user of the software.
I love and am grateful for all of you users, and I respect your right to your opinions about everything to do with Dorico, but whenever I see people describing condensing as a basic feature and beating Dorico up for not having it, I can’t help but get a bit irked by it. No other software has ever satisfactorily solved this problem (Finale users who consider the partial solution in that software satisfactory, I’m glad you find it so, but it’s incomplete at best), so why is it that all other software gets the benefit of the doubt and Dorico gets a kicking for not having this “basic” feature that no other software has? It’s a bit unfair, isn’t it?
And to be clear: we have no plans to release another major paid update to Dorico this year.
I hope that in no way did you feel I was beating up Dorico for not having it.
I was merely expressing a thought, from the outside looking in, that it might be sooner rather than later for such functionality to exist.
If my opinions/thoughts offended you, please accept my sincerest apology.
No, Robby, I wasn’t at all referring to you.