As you can see though in order to fill a 3:2 [sixteenth] tuplet, a dotted eighth is needed. This rhythm augmentation dot is not present in the John Williams score, as mathematically incorrect as it may be, but it retains its clarity nonetheless.
It is possible, however, to nest a 2:3 tuplet, inside of the 3:2 tuplet, and have it look the way I would like it to. The only problem with this is that the playback results in something akin to an unmeasured tremolo.
Example 1 (2:3 tuplet nested in a 3:2 tuplet) is visually “correct” for the context, but plays back as an unmeasured tremolo. Tested at quarter note = 10 bpm.
Example 2 (3:2 tuplet only) is visually incorrect due to the augmentation dot, but plays back correctly as 3 triplet sixteenth notes.
So here are my questions:
Is it possible at all to remove or hide the augmentation dot in all places that resemble my example 1?
Is it possible to edit the playback of example 2 so that I hear 3 sixteenth triplets rather than an unmeasured tremolo?
In my second image I used a custom playing technique to create the subdivision shorthand (the three dots) above the notes. Is it possible to have Dorico automatically create this?
The first bar has sixteenth triplets containing dotted eighth notes and one stroke single-note tremolos to obtain the desired playback. In the second bar, a grace note with the same pitch precedes each dotted eighth note. In the third bar, the grace notes have their playback suppressed, their scale set to normal and their stems hidden in engrave mode. In the fourth bar, the dotted eighth notes have their ledger lines and noteheads hidden in engrave mode, which also hides the augmentation dots. In the last bar, the first and second grace notes have their voice column X offset properties set in engrave mode to 2 1/5 and 1 13/16, respectively.
Wow, @johnkprice.
I’m always amazed by your ingenious solutions and workarounds. This is fantastic and something I hadn’t thought of doing.
I will play around with this when I get back to the project. At a glance, I’m concerned that this may cause some issues with condensing staves and that the offset of the “grace note” noteheads may change depending on the spacing of the music?
This is something I’d thought of, it could potentially be faster and it may have to work for this project if I can’t get @johnkprice’s suggestion to work when condensing.
The only issue I have with using a playback staff vs. a printed staff is that you have to always remember to edit both in conjunction, and there’s no real “linking” between them.
I don’t quite understand why John Williams or his copyist chose this notation, as it’s decidedly unorthodox. Since un-dotted eighths with a slash mean straight sixteenths, you would need to consistently keep printing the triple dots on every note as confirmation to resolve the ambiguity. Your first screenshot, marked ‘the closest I’ve been able to achieve’ (but without the triple-dots) is, in fact, the widely-understood and unambiguous notation convention for this, and indeed Dorico also plays it back correctly. @johnkprice’s virtuosic workarounds (as well as copyright law) notwithstanding, I would personally conventionalise this notation without as much as a second thought. We’re not making an Urtext edition here.
