The new 4.3 function "hide notehead": bug?

I think you should be able to achieve the necessary mental transfer yourself, but I can write it out for you:
Imagine the first not being an e flat, but a d 3:4-flat. Then, the second note is tied to the first and has a real notehead. Then, the third note is still the same pitch, is also tied, but has a bracketed notehead, meaning that the gliss starts exactly on the second triplet.

You can also see that principle in the following bracketed noteheads, which change direction. If I can technically specify a change of direction of a glissando precisely, I can also technically specify an arbitrary starting point precisely.

Er? Poppycock!

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.


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!

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