Gould tells us that in completed score the dynamic markings will be in a consistent horizontal band usually below ( or Above for Vocal Music ).
Dorico does all this for me if I group dynamics together.
However, I’ve noticed that if I have group all dynamics in a work and then make substantial alterations early in a work then later passages may get dynamics shifted sideways (i.e. on the wrong notes) - or even stacked on top of each other (for me one note had acquired six different dynamic markings. I certainly didn’t do that by hand ).
So what is a good strategy here?
Should I ungroup all the dynamics before making any edit and regroup them afterwards?
Or should group by dynamics ‘system by system’? (And if that is the right strategy why can’t Dorico offer to do it for me?, Surely I’m not expected to select the dynamic set for ev ery system by hand?)
And even ‘System by system Sounds’ suspect. What if I re-layout all the systems?
I guess this affects everybody but probably affects composers much more than arrangers. When I’m arranging something I know in advance how many notes and bars I will have. Unfortunately I’m no Mozart, as a third rate composer I’m constantly tinkering, even after a first performance (ouch ). Its frustrating if removing or adding a bar messes up any engraving changes I’ve made - but it’s more than frustrating when it invalidates all the dynamics .
What I do is to make sure that the same dynamics on all staves are created at the same time, either by selecting all the staves and creating the dynamics, or doing it once and duplicating to staves below.
Admittedly, I’m mostly copying other people’s music, rather than creating it anew.
I don’t have the text in front of me but surely it’s not necessary for all dynamics in a score to be at exactly the same vertical position - definitely dynamics within a phrase, and maybe even a system?
In Dorico, “groups” of dynamics are dynamics that immediately follow each other horizontally on the staff, were input together or in sequence, and have gradual dynamics between the immediate dynamics.
I don’t think that this function was intended to be used in the way that you are using it, and this is why you might have strange behaviour from time to time.
But, if I were you, and wanted all dynamics at the same vertical position, I would make grouping dynamics the last thing to do (this would mean ungrouping while editing).
I think you are missing something here: Horizontal consistency is only advised for dynamics within a certain proximity of each other. It’s not intended for grouping all dynamics.
Just curious: Where does she say this? What I’m familiar with is p. 105, which says, “When a sequence of changing dynamics involves hairpins, keep such markings on the same horizontal plane whenever possible. … A sequence of dynamics at different vertical positions should be avoided …”
Note that both times she says “sequence”, implying dynamics in proximity, rather than all dynamics for the player. And this is basically how Dorico handles things, as @DanielMuzMurraynoted.
RE: asherber
Yes Gould page 105 is my guide. Also my [very inspiring] composition teacher is an old style ‘dragon’ and always picks up any misaligned dynamics.
My aim was always been to align the dynamics system by system and I was grouping my dynamics system by system. But as I compose my system’s re-flow and it becomes far less useful. And regrouping system by system after each re-flow is very time consuming. Hence my question i.e. what workflows work? (was I missing a trick)
). Its frustrating if removing or adding a bar messes up any engraving changes I’ve made - but it’s more than frustrating when it invalidates all the dynamics .
and always picks up any misaligned dynamics.