Writing a timp part in A-D, dorico put all the stems up like in the first line, dont think I have seen that so much in the orchestral repertoar, not sure what to think, thoughts?
There is an Engraving Option to set the behaviour for the middle stem – but this is a global setting that applies to all staves.
If you want to force the stem direction of the timp part separately from the other staves, just select the whole thing and Force Stem in the direction you want. (Edit > Notations > Stem.)
Quoting “Behind bars” by Elaine Gould (p. 13):
“When notes are on the middle line, the stems may go in either direction. The direction is determined by context. Continue the stem direction of surrounding stems that are in one direction only.”
Thanks! 
Yes! It just felt a bit unusual in this context
Your timpani part looks perfect!
I think one of the issues that has occurred over time was that prior to Dorico, computer engraving was not able to see “context” in stem directions. Especially with quarter notes or larger. As such, many engraving applications chose to default down for stem directions.
I think about the thousands of engravings over the last 30+ years that got musicians seeing things only one way. So much so, that I have had musicians tell me, “This is wrong, I need all of the stems to go down.”
I’m hoping with more people using Dorico, that more musicians will see more accurate uses of stem direction.
Robby
Sorry, I’m going to have to agree with OP’s first thoughts here.* The upward stems for the D’s look very awkward; notice how much shorter they are than the stems for the A’s. Granted, that could be true if the D’s point down, as well, but then the difference in stem length is also not as noticeable.
I was inclined to agree with @Robby_Poole at first; it’s certainly plausible that the stem direction for the middle line was more arbitrary at one time. However, I’m pretty sure that the standardization of the stem direction took place well before computer engraving took off. As an example, here’s an excerpt from the timpani part of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 2:
This engraving was from 1862; it accompanied the first Beethoven complete edition. In fairness, perhaps the engravers didn’t consider stem direction context, either, but then that would be the issue, not early computer engraving per se. In any event, I am not convinced of the merits of stem direction context, at least for the above examples.
To add to @benwiggy’s response, the Engraving Option in question is “Stem direction for notes on the middle line of the staff”; it is found under Notes > Stem Directions. The stems you have now correspond to “Determine by context”; if you select “Use default direction”, you will get downward stems for the D’s.
*Another example, in my humble opinion, of how the modern style guides should not be followed unquestioningly.
@Serioso That is super interesting to see. While I’ve seen this type of thing before in older scores I never thought much of it. It wasn’t until I read parts of Gould that this really stuck out to me (10 years ago or so). And certainly 75+% of what I see today (engraving older files where the originals were lost) are scores that were all done on Finale, Sibelius, or MuseScore.
I recognize stems up a lot more now in older engraved scores, when I come across them. But now I am beginning to think you might be on to something. It might not have been as much context based as I thought.
Thanks for sharing that! I always appreciate the chance the think about music engraving on a deeper level.
Robby
I personally wouldn’t change anything. To me, it doesn’t look displeasing. I would keep it.
But this is my opinion.
Robby
I would flip all those middle line Ds down. Having a fixed inflection point helps with sight-reading as the eye has a reliable reference point in the staff. Going from bar 15 to 16 in your top example, flipping the Ds down allows the reader to automatically know those are on the middle line without any question or additional eye movements.
Amazing resources @FredGUnn !!! I own Stone, Ross, and Read, but haven’t opened them up in many years. And didn’t even bother to consult them in reading through this thread. This topic is so interesting to me, as I see other fields that experience similar situations.
My day job is an air traffic controller. And in that job, we have rules we have to follow. However, some rules are augmented at certain airports/in certain airspace for specific case situations. Many of these augmented rules move around the country as controllers move from place to place. Lo and behold, 20 years later we have rules being trained that aren’t really the actual rule. Because people move around so frequently and they end up teaching what they know to be “rules” because no distinction was made apparent in the case specific situations. Therefore, these case specific rules start to show up in areas where it doesn’t even really apply. Then there is effort put in to teach the correct rule, once this error is detected. I am super fascinated by the fact that this happens. And this is one of those similar cases in music engraving.
“The Chicken or the egg” - I wonder sometimes how much of this has become common practice (as all of your resources state) in the modern era because of the influence of the computer or other technological achievements. While @Serioso did an excellent job of showing a much older engraving abiding by the stem down rule, I wonder how much of that became so normalized over the years due to computer engravings.
In the end, this is probably one of the smallest issues in engraving that one can come across. But it is one that I actually think about often.
Robby
Ross, Read, and Stone all pre-date the computer era, so I doubt that has anything to do with it.
My own personal theory is that the standardization of many engraving rules was a result of the studio orchestra era of the 1950s-60s. Prior to that, it’s of course possible to find examples of all sorts of notation if you search long enough. With the advent of studio orchestras, music was expected to be sightread and mistakes were either permanent (on a recording or broadcast) or expensive (if another take was required). So engraving rules with note grouping, stemming, etc. all evolved to favor sight-reading. Having a fixed inflection point at the middle line is advantageous for the sight-reader as it is reliable and they don’t have to waste 1/10th of a second with a glance to confirm location.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many of our classic notation texts were published from 1970-80. After a period of standardization, these authors wanted to put the “rules” down in print. The stemming rule seemed almost universally accepted among authors until Gould came along. (Although I understand it might not have been so universal in the UK.) Her advice on this seems well out of line with the majority of authors and publishers from the previous 50 years.
Such an interesting perspective. And you might be correct regarding the studio orchestra era.
Robby
Thanks so much for all the great feedback and info! I have a lot to think about now
I wouldn’t do contextual middle-line stemming in a timpani part: I would keep them all down.
However, I do like it in other parts. In many ways, I think it parallels beaming:
Slurred pairs often benefit from flipping the middle line:
I also like this quote:
We have heard it said that when the noteheads are above the third line, the stems are turned down, and when below the third line, the steps are turned up; also that when notes are on the third line, the stems are turned up if the stem of the following note is up, or down if the next note is down. But really such rules cannot be consistently followed.
William Gamble, Music Engraving and Printing, 1923
Music notation is always full of exceptions to rules!
@benwiggy thanks for sharing this as well! I think this is great information!!!
Is Music Engraving and Printing a book that can still be purchased?
Robby
I doubt there are many copies on the open market; but copies exist, certainly.
The 1923 aspect is key though. I think prior to 1950 or so the “rules” were a bit more flexible, but they were codified in the studio orchestra era, and by 1970 or so were not so flexible, as there was a strong preference for a fixed inflection point as it facilitated sight-reading. Almost all texts other than Gould that were published after the studio orchestra heyday say that notes on the middle line should now be stemmed down.
You can find copies of it floating around. I actually have the 1979 reprint by Arno Press. The 1971 Da Capo Press reprint is on archive.org.