Why is bar 5 not reported when the other errors are?
Could it be that Dorico understands to “match” the upbeat bar with bar 5?
I replaced the : | with a normal bar line and got
which does not target the problem in bar 5 (well, it depends on which bar 5 you look at, I mean the last on first system).
Yes, that’s exactly what it’s doing.
We debated this. The problem is that there a lot of published pieces - particularly late-Romantic pieces - that start with an upbeat bar and don’t have a “matched” ending, and we didn’t think it made sense to give a warning for something that was so common. So we have an exception where the very last bar of the flow can be “unmatched” without giving a warning.
I see. Could this be an option (Romantic/Modern style) in an update? I think it would be valuable.
We are trying very hard not to add options for proofreading, to avoid making this yet another area of the software where the effort required to understand and fully benefit from the feature grows unbounded. So my initial answer is: no.
The only case in which I could imagine a warning of a non upbeat matching final bar being useful would be very short pieces, so the total number of bars may have a word in this.
In fact, in published music I only see matching final bars in songs, hymns, and in the rhythm book which is the basis of my lectures - and nowhere else.
If an “Acknowledge/Hide” button is ever added to the proofing list (to “disregard” something that is “wrong”) in a future version perhaps this type of warning could be activated? (For organ music I can see that dynamics checking might generate several warnings that are not valid and such a function would be useful.)
Brahms[Lemare] Intermezzo, Op. 117/1, Op. 116/4, … [Schott, London] and many many other pieces. Even originally by Brahms et al.
Damn, you’re right! Touché, I stand corrected. (Although it’s really embarassing not to have spotted this before with one of my favourite composers, being the nerd that I identify as…)
And Bach of course, whereas he occasionally let a remaining 16th rest slip through, probably for better readability.
After all, given Bach and Brahms having been the amicable nerds that they were (I mean, in case of the former, if writing a comprehensive collection of preludes and fugues in all possible keys just because it’s possible - and doing it twice! - doesn’t qualify as nerdy, then I don’t know what does), I guess that if one would follow their path today with the same determination, one would not need a proofreading algorithm to take care of it, right?
