Suggestion - Barbershop Template

The Barbershop Template, by default, consists of Tenor 1, Tenor 2, Baritone, and Bass. The proper designation, in Barbershop terms is, Tenor, Lead, Baritone, Bass.
Not a huge deal for most, but anyone using the barbershop template for barbershop arrangements will definitely change the staff names, 100% of the time, to what I have suggested.
You can verify this or find out more at barbershop.org

Thanks: we don’t currently have a means of overriding the instrument names in the templates, but we will work to implement this and ensure that the Barbershop template is updated.

Also, when you get to this, Barbershop music is always written on two staves, rather than four.

Well, that’s a bit more difficult, as in order to truly fit in the Dorico way of doing things ideally Dorico should produce a proper condensed score based on having input the music for all four players on separate staves.

Is that a general rule in Dorico, that staves are created for each player and they are then condensed for printing? I just checked the Romantic Orchestra template (none of the staves is labelled) and there’s only one staff each for flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons, etc. Are we supposed to enter the music in two voices and then Dorico will separate them into two staves for the parts? Also, there’s a long list of instrumental part layouts, but they’re all set up to show all instruments. I don’t understand the point of this. When I want to create a part layout for one player, I select the icon Add Instrumental Part Layout, but all the instruments are included and I’d have to uncheck each one on the left, and then repeat this for every instrument. Obviously I’m doing something wrong, but how do I make parts from this particular template? In the chamber works I’ve set up from scratch so far, or even imported via XML, this has been taken care of.

If all of your part layouts are set to include all instruments, then something has gone wrong with your layout options, due to a bug in 1.0 that will be fixed in the forthcoming 1.0.10 update. If you’re looking at a full score layout in Layout Options when you click the ‘Save as Default for Parts’ button, then those settings will be used for all newly-created parts from then on, which would be fine if Dorico did not incorrectly apply the rules for whether or not the new layout should grab hold of all flows and all players.

For the time being, you should go to ~/Library/Application Support/Steinberg/Dorico and delete the file called layoutOptions_parts.xml.

The design intention with Dorico is that you should enter your music for each player on its own staff, and then Dorico will take care of the production of a conductor’s score where instruments share staves as necessary in an automatic fashion. Although a lot of the groundwork necessary to achieve this has been laid, we still have a lot more work to do on it and as such it will be a while before this feature sees the light of day. Until then you can use the same sorts of workarounds you would employ in other scoring software, of creating duplicate staves (of course in Dorico this means creating duplicate players holding duplicate instruments) and then hiding staves as necessary to produce the appropriate score layout. But a better way is coming.

Any chance you can reconsider this? This issue isn’t just limited to Barbershop. For example, it’s common in vocal scores to see Sopranos and Altos on one stave and Tenors and Basses on a second stave. Splitting them out as parts would obviously be useful but in strictly notational terms, it’s not that unusual to see different instruments / players combined into a single stave.

I’m not saying that you can’t do it that way if you want to, only that the way we have designed Dorico it is preferable to write each part independently, and then allow Dorico to put it together for you.

Thanks, Daniel. I was hoping that something like that was going on. I deleted the file and all is well. I’m looking forward to Dorico’s way of dealing with multiple parts on single staves. This has always been problematic in ‘other scoring software’!