In attempting to duplicate this later engraved version of the original Corelli I have managed to match the violin notation, and the “keyboard” notation exactly. The music aligns beat for beat. But notice on the PDF, the violin tuplets are aligned with beats 2 and 4 of the piano left hand, not the “and of 2 and 4” in the piano right hand. This creates “extra space” for the violin tuplets in the score. Stated differently, the dots on the violin quarter notes are in a sense “ignored” in terms of music spacing compared to the keyboard notation.
In engrave mode it is possible to move notes left and right, but in this case I need to move the notes only on the violin staff, and not the keyboard too. Is this possible?
Granted, this seems unusual and maybe even incorrect, but somehow this old engraved score seems less crowded and maybe a little Corelli Example Help.dorico (1.1 MB)
more “elegant.”
It is also true this distinction is relevant only in terms of the score, and not the separate violin and keyboard musician parts.
Perhaps I am approaching this entirely backwards, and a different approach is an easy fix. Corelli Op 5 No 4 pg 290.pdf (147.7 KB)
Thanks Mark! This works. I’ll dig deeper into the documentation. It will take me a while to figure out the best way to move all these notes proportionally at the same time to match the PDF note alignment. Adjusting the rhythmic grid makes a big difference. I’m making progress at spreading those violin notes out.
You’re trying to do something most unusual. But you might have more success using hidden tuplets (so long as playback is not a concern for you). This will handle your proportional spacing better.
Janus- your idea of hidden tuplets is an “alternative approach” mentioned in the original post. I considered something like this, but never arrived at a viable tuplet plan. I assume you would apply some kind of full bar or half bar complex nested tuplet on the violin part. Or would you apply this strategy to the keyboard part leaving the violin untouched from my Dorico file, or all staves? Could I trouble you for a half-bar example as a template? I’d appreciate it, as would other users facing this unusual and rare situation. Personally, I don’t recall ever seeing this in a full score before, especially dating to the music of Corelli in 1700. BTW, this excerpt is cited as especially “interesting” as inspiration for the Jerome Kern now American jazz standard song “All the Things You Are.” Coincidence? Probably, Kern never mentioned Corelli as inspiration for his compositions.
Thank you for this extra work Janus! Your are correct this matches the engraving much more closely, almost exactly. Credit for this original engraving is due Joseph Joachim and Friedrich Chrysander at Auger & Co in London 1888-1891. Their layout is impressive, as I doubt “nested tuplets” and the math involved were a part of their process, but perhaps it was. It may not be “correct,” but it is beautiful, including the two different font sizes. Credit is due Team Dorico too, as the printed and playback versions can reside in different flows. In terms of Dorico workflow I think we have determined the best approach is to create the “playback” or contemporary version first, which can be created with no nested tuplets; copy the flow, then build the nested tuplets like you have provided to create the print version. Though time consuming, moving the notes in engrave mode works too, and solves the playback issue. But despite considerable engrave mode manipulation the nested tuplets look better to my eyes. The irony here, is the violinist won’t play exactly what is written with strict metronome precision no matter how it is notated. It is good to know Dorico can resolve this unusual notation situation via two very different methods.
