The new 4.3 function "hide notehead": bug?

Er? Poppycock!

EDIT:
Can I offer Ben Britten’s solution (at the start of his Midsummer Night’s Dream)?


Clearly here the glissandi start immediately!

I prefer to create a specific notehead set (the dots remain). It is faster…

However, as a copyist, it is often necessary to write exactly as in autograph.

And there remains, for me, the underlying issue that is purely technical: why should this function interfere in the rhythmic sphere?

I think it’s just as likely that you would want to hide the rhythm dot as not. Indeed, the feedback we had from our beta testers was that it absolutely should hide the rhythm dot!

So I’m not quite sure how to square the circle here. My feeling is that the rhythm dot should be hidden by default, but perhaps we’ll need to add another property that allows you to force the rhythm dot to appear even if the notehead is hidden. I will think on it some more.

7 Likes

That would be great!

I work with a lot of contemporary music (and major publishers) and the margins for negotiation on writing are often zero.
This is for example a case where I cannot deviate.

Well, fortunately you have a few options available to you in the immediate term to allow you to proceed, but I will definitely think about this more.

Clearly the Gliss start exactly at beat 2!

1 Like

I don’t really have a horse in the race here but I just wanted to mention that I have also had to engrave pieces that use this convention and none of the editors involved would have let it go without a dot.
I don’t see the problem being where the gliss begins but where it ends. @klafkid, what if you wanted the g in your example above to be on the last 16th?

Yes, it would be good to have the option to move the text of gliss lines like one can with prefix/sufix of dynamics and also the option to erase the background.
In the meantime one can create a couple of horizontal lines with the gliss. text as annotation (above and below), without effect in the playback, but the playback of glissandi in Dorico is still a work in progress anyway.

Then I would write on beat 4 an eighth and a sixteenth without a notehead and then the g as a sixteenth

ah, gotcha. I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks
That also helps because the gliss lines invariably collide with the dot.

I don’t understand all the fuss about those dots: the method we used until 4.3 (minimize to 1% and opacity to 0) doesn’t hide the dots, AFAIK. So use the ol’ workaround to have the dots :wink:
And those who don’t need the dots, let’s enjoy the new property :rofl:

1 Like

Food for thought from a jazz thread today: It would seem to be most useful (and lexically sensible) if hiding one dotted note in a chord does hide that dot, but hiding all noteheads in a chord leaves the dots showing! Dunno if that’s possible as a default.

1 Like

I really hope there’ll be improvements here. Besides the obvious need of the dot to complete the duration/rhythm information, in the example bellow the spacing/position of the note stems/tie endpoints doesn’t look good at all (top staff in the engraved version, with the greyed out hidden noteheads not shown here).
Screenshot 2022-12-23 at 09.41.26

For the moment, the “Headless Noteheads” notehead set workaround (bottom staff, no retouching) seems still a better option (which is even much quicker to apply with the contextual menu, as one can’t (yet?) set a key command for the new property).

Another problem occurred during the proofreading of a job.
When printing on paper (from a monochrome pdf) the hidden notehead was bleached out and not invisible, creating a graphic glitch.
Schermata 2022-12-27 alle 14.08.28

Regarding the glissando discussion, Gould recommends using headless stems with rhythm dots if the rhythm would ordinarily be written that way. However, these rhythm dots are not at their usual vertical position, so you might want to use custom dots anyway. Also, I suppose you could instead use additional stems and flags where rhythm dots would be.

Another case for headless stems with rhythm dots might be repeated chord notation. Though Gould does not use rhythm dots in this example, I’d imagine they would be necessary in something like a dotted-eighth–sixteenth rhythm. (Hmm…but would you use one dot, or several?)

2 Likes

It would be great to have the option to place the rhythm dots differently when hiding noteheads for glissandi. Either just as an all-purpose, free-motion adjustment in engrave mode or perhaps even as a smart property specifically for a gliss.

It would be great to have vertical control of rhythm dots at all.

I’m just adding my voice here to support being able to hide the notehead but show the rhythm dot – very useful for all sorts of notations!

I also have a request – is it possible to include the ‘hide notehead’ function in the Write Mode? It seems strange that I can change scale of note and other things in write mode, but not whether there is a notehead or not — and the presence of the notehead or lack of it is definitely a fundamental part of the musical grammar as I write — rather than in the casting off process. I just end up having to make notes for myslef all over the score where noteheads later need to be hidden (switching back and forth between modes is very time consuming… )

Hi @Schweinhorn it is possible to make the notehead “Invisible” while the dot remains visible: select the note (in write or engrave mode), then in Properties activate Color, click on the little black square and set the Opacity to 0% :slight_smile:

Oh great tip thanks.