Hello Dorico team
I’d like to make a suggestion for future versions of Dorico. I think Dorico needs a “Players Excluded From Show Empty Staves” option in Layout>Vertical Spacing. Here’s why I think it’s necessary…
Choral writers (like myself) may change between Choir Reduction and Full SATB. The former is useful to save space when the choir are singing homophonically, the latter is necessary when they are singing contrapuntally.
The easiest way to do this is set up six vocal staves (1) S. (2) S.A. (3) A. (4) T. (5) T.B. (6) B. When one wants SATB, one uses 1,3,4,6. When one wants choral reduction, then 2 & 5. So far so good. That works fine as long as I have elected to hide empty staves in the first system.
But if I’m working with an orch, then (while it’s OK to hide first-page empty staves in the choral part), I want everything showing on the first page of the orch score. The result is that all six vocal staves show, when I only want four (or two) to show at the beginning.
Of course, I know that I can hide all staves and put blank text in the ones I want to show. But that’s time-consuming. And with a file with 32 flows and a big orch, it’s very time-consuming, especially since the problem only arises with a few flows.
But if you had a “Players Excluded From Show Empty Staves” option, it would be easy. In the orch score, one would just leave empty staves showing, but the excluded ones (say my S.A. and T.B. staves), would remain hidden. That way I’d get the full score layout without the extra players showing.
Is this something you could consider?
Hello Dorico team
If I recall correctly, this is one of the areas that is getting some love for the next version, so we should get the control we need soon-ish.
In due course, my hope is that you’ll be able to do this without needing any additional staves for the choral parts at all: instead, you’ll simply be able to condense the four vocal staves intelligently down into two when appropriate. But this needs some additional intelligence in the condensing feature that Dorico doesn’t yet have.
Thanks to you both. Honestly, Daniel, I’ll be happy to have it the unintelligent way, with the staves just nicely hiding. Seems simpler to me.