In an attempt to keep the number of Players to a minimum in full orchestral scores, I’d like to be able to assign instruments to Players like this:
Instead of:
Flute 1, can use Piccolo
Flute 2
Flutes section
Assign:
Flute 1, can use Piccolo and Flute Section
Flute 2
But this would involve mixing Section instruments with Solo instruments for one Player.
Does doing this create bad consequences in other areas of the program?
I’m not too sure what you’re trying to achieve. To be a solo or section player is a property of the player, and the two will not mix. If you’re talking about condensation, then you should be using a section player to make use of divisi staves in case you need them, but having that in the same player as one of the, well, players will prevent you from pulling the appropriate part, if you need it.
A shorter list of Players for practical reasons, mostly trimming the list of Layouts.
To be a solo or section player is a property of the player
Understood.
the two will not mix
That’s why I’m asking the question. If there are bad consequences, then mixing is not an option. I’m just wondering in actual practice what those bad consequences might be. That way I’ll understand Dorico better and WHY it’s not an option.
If you’re talking about condensation, then you should be using a section player to make use of divisi staves in case you need them, but having that in the same player as one of the, well, players will prevent you from pulling the appropriate part, if you need it.
Thanks for the information and suggestion. I’ll have to look at that and think about it. It seems like you’re suggesting that I use the opposite approach to what I’m doing, correct? Use Section players but let them as needed handle Solo instruments? Aren’t you then still mixing two different types of players? Or am I misunderstanding you?
In terms of trimming the list of Layouts, you can delete them if you don’t need them, and you can (obviously) create part layouts with multiple players on them as necessary.
Yeah, I suppose I could just forgo Layouts for individual instruments. That makes a whole lot more sense than what I was trying.
Piggybacking on Leo’s idea, I wonder if you could combine a Flute Section Player (that includes 1 & 2) and a separate Piccolo player in one part Layout and then hide the Picc staff when empty. You might try a short “proof of concept” project to see if that works.
All good suggestions.
What I’m messing with right now is definitely proof of concept, so that once I come up with what works best for me I implement it consistently.
Based on this thread and responses in some other threads I have on Layouts, I’m gravitating back to using the Layouts instead of messing too much with the Players. Because my purpose is composing, not engraving for live use, I just deleted my individual Player Layouts and kept my Layouts for instrument groups. That makes things more manageable.
Thanks all. Just started diving in, so you’re helping me get settled in my own work flow. One thing that’s clear to me is that my understanding of Layouts has been improved.
Okay, after some work it looks like perhaps I was too influenced by my previous software, Notion. Notion was not very good with voices, so it was necessary to break out multiple voices into separate staffs, e.g. Flute 1, Flute 2.
Dorico work with voices is much better. So I’ve determined I really only need two Players per instrument instead of three, one for solo and multi-voice parts (Flutes 1 & 2), and one for section players (Flute Section). This I’ve replicated in all Woodwind and Brass Instruments, and things are much easier to work with.
Of course in traditional classical scores you usually run into a single staff for all purposes, solo, multiple voices, and tutti. Textual indications are made where appropriate (a1, a2). I had just been working too long in a program that didn’t work well this way.