One would think, yes — FWIW, it was certainly clear to me. And I happen to agree completely with @klavierpunk, @benwiggy, @Santiago_Galan, and no doubt many others that there was absolutely nothing “wrong” with your question. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer about that.
I could, as ever, not have said it any better myself!
They do not, for they don’t exist! Mine was simply a tactical suggestion to help avoid getting a cranky response of the sort that made you feel — unfortunately — unwelcome. (The topic title OT: To the Organ Players: What Does This Mean? would signal to those inclined towards a more strictly focused use of the forum that they should skip your post. I hope that clarifies!)
Don’t! I welcome such questions. This forum’s lack of “sections” is a great flaw. With sections, anyone not liking a certain topic could just avoid those posts and focus on their particular interest.
Perhaps I was not clear. I was trying to say you would likely find more learned opinions on an organ forum (altho of course there are knowledgable people here). Had you asked first up how to do it, it would obviously be relevant. And adding OT is the convention.
‘Hard core’ organ forums would certainly know the answer, but the OP would probably get a lot of bashing unless it were something that agreed with their established ‘rules’ of Urtext. The Dorico forum tends to be very friendly in general.
OT is not used on the subject level, as seen in many forum posts, lastly by the Golden ratio discussion that is ‘academical’ and partly practical (to set a number)
OT is, IMO, used in the reply to mark a section that is out of context and can be skipped. For example, the OT above means that anyone looking for more detailed answers about what the “hooked lines” are could skip this entire post.
@Andro, I believe you are a skilled administrator of other forums. Is setting up (sub)sections difficult?
The “conceptual neatnik” () in me agrees. There are times when I have found the more freeform nature to be a bit messy.
However, (A) I have also come to really appreciate the fertile cross-pollination that sometimes happens here that categories and sections would no doubt hamper; and (B) my experience from more compartmentalized forums is that in practice many posts ooze across the boundaries anyway, making the compartments themselves all the more annoying for being violated.
Yes, structure is essential. A mandatory tag (Bug, Installation/Execution problems, Audio, Engraving, General discussion…) that could be set to ‘ignore’ would be nice. The majority of posts would then be excluded from my “inbox.”
We have hijacked the OP’s thread. Perhaps a topic “What could be done to improve the user experience of the magnificent Dorico forum” should be started instead, sorted under “General discussion”, obviously.
As for notating organ pedaling, the symbols for heel / toe are pretty easily available as SMuFL glyphs. Check the table on this page:
Input as text using Bravura Text font. I’m a MAC guy, so holding OPTION while typing “E664” will generate a mark for “toe”. I follow the convention of marks above the note for right foot & marks below for left foot. Some prefer the upward pointing mark (“E665”) for right foot and downward pointing mark for left. Oh, I think you have to have your keyboard set to allow “Unicode Hex Input” for this to work. Not sure about Windows.
The only other complication I’ve found is that you need to increase the font size when using SMuFL glyphs as text. In general, the SMuFL glyphs are really great for all sorts of “symbols” and notational unusualness.
Agree 100%. I’ve learned a lot about Dorico from topics that I’d never thought I’d need. I’m also always interested to learn things about instruments that I’m not familiar with. I sympathize with people calling for categories/subsections but I also like the box of chocolates kind of vibe that this forum currently has.
) in me agrees. There are times when I have found the more freeform nature to be a bit messy.
