I do not know if it is a bug or a deliberate choice, but I find ‘hide notehead’ a very limiting function at the moment.
When activated on a dotted note, the function also hides the dot, introducing a rhythmic error.
I sincerely hope that this behaviour will soon be corrected.
It’s certainly intentional that hiding a notehead will also hide its associated rhythm dot. Can you say a bit more about why you feel this introduces a rhythmic error? Under what circumstances do you want to hide a notehead but not its rhythm dot?
E.g. in this case the duration of the glissade is exact and explicit.
If I apply the function, the duration of the glissato appears shorter and the bar is missing a sixteenth.
Exactly.
Further issue is that this is an engraving of an autograph and certainly the publisher would point out to me the lack of the dot as an error to be corrected.
Apart from the specifics (if one literally considers the writing, the gliss. lasts a dotted eighth), doesn’t it seem strange to you that in the measure a sixteenth is missing as rkrentzman points out)?
The autograph is written by hand, so it’s trying to be fast for handwriting.
In this case make the dotted eighth a normal eighth + sixteenth, it’s much more legible for players.
I can agree with you, but at the behest of the publisher I have to copy the manuscript exactly.
In general, however, I find it bizarre (and frankly not proper) - especially in a software as semantically structured as Dorico - that a ‘cosmetic’ function should interfere with the rhythmic structure.
Gliss’s do not have a specific duration. Typically they start at an unspecified time after the start of the first note and end at the start of the end note.
I, for one, would be thoroughly confused by the example you give. And I have never seen a dot on a gliss line!
I made these rhythm dots with 2 separate text items, positioned by hand. At least when you hide the noteheads a shadow of the dots still appears so you can position the replacements accurately.
They certainly do in much music of the last several decades. Just like dynamic changes on certain beats in tied notes, the exact timing is indicated.
This example is problematic in other ways:
Can’t show “gliss.” text below the line
Can’t tie visible notes to hidden noteheads
(Logically they should be, though in the MS they are not)
I don’t see how you can assert that when I have seen examples of it, and you cannot have seen every score there is.
Perhaps in this particular case it need not begin right on the beat of the last note. But if it were tied-to (and I have seen these), one would have to read it as beginning exactly on that beat.
Feel free to show us.
(A note followed by a gliss line does not explain where, in time, the gliss starts, merely that the arrival at the next note is via a gliss. Further, the convention is that the time for the gliss is borrowed from the first note, not the arrival point)
It’s clear that the second example is held longer before the gliss starts, and thus a starting point of a gliss can be given.
If I would want a gliss to start exactly on beat 4 (while the note starts at beat 3), I could place a tied-to note in brackets on beat 4 where the gliss starts. That’s unambiguous and precise. I didn’t do it in my examples because I didn’t want it.
I still do not know when the first gliss starts. It is clearly somewhere during the 1st Eb, and certainly must start before the indeterminate note that starts the triplet. But is it at the instant the Eb sounds, or perhaps in the last half of that note, or elsewhere?