Dorico does not show all possible strings in ‘String’ property item.
On the ossia staff, I could set the correct string to each natural harmonics note, which is notated as sounding pitch. Dorico plays correctly back those pitches.
However, I could not set the correct string to each natural harmonics note, which is notated with fingering position. Dorico does not play correctly back those pitches.
I assume this is for cello?
You are using filled diamond noteheads, which are mainly used in guitar music and not so much in bowed string music.
Although they are getting more popular there, too, Dorico doesn’t support them with bowed strings, leading to inconsistencies like this.
Use empty diamond noteheads, which anyhow would be more idiomatic and both the easy rhythm as well as the ossia provide enough information to avoid rhythmic ambiguity.
Thank you! The problem is resolved by selecting white diamond noteheads!
The part is the viola part, and I moved the two B in bat 19 and 20 into one octave lower!
would it be possible to get the following notation as an option for bowed string instruments?
(and when I say “get the following option” I mean without needing to resort to work-arounds, but simply have it as a button option, the way partials, noteheads, etc… are available as harmonics options right now)
at least this way one avoids having to use the “sul (string number)” markings. And it’s becoming a more and more acceptable method of notating natural harmonics.
Yes, in my example it’s a perfect 4th, so almost obvious, but it could be a 5th or a 3rd or a 6th. the small stemless notehead in parentheses identifies the string, removing any question of which string the harmonic is played on.
I would love to be able to enter only the string (for example, using the above image, entering a D, then a G) and then toggling which visual version of the natural harmonic I want, which node to touch, the stemless note beneath, the parentheses.
I personally don’t like this notation, as bracketed, unconnected noteheads are used to indicate sounding pitches.
Gould says, a connected variant is possible, but I think the following example shows clearly how cluttered things can get:
the “sul G” or roman numbers for strings (“I”, “IV” etc.) are two possible clear indications for string allocation, the latter one being easily scalable to not use too much space.
your example a) is double-stopped, while your example b) is divisi.
for a situation like b) there will ALWAYS be some clutter. include the string numbers and you have added clutter, necessary, but present. this type of situation would benefit from a divisi staff. we are no longer trapped by the limitations of pencil and paper, adding staves, resizing pages as a whole, these are all means of reducing clutter and clarifying notation.
If the unconnected noteheads are below I think it’s rather obvious that they aren’t sounding pitches.
let’s say I’m a person who doesn’t like being told by my software what to do. If I require a detached notehead, below my harmonic, to indicate the string in use, then I don’t want the software to make that a tedious process to achieve.
a) and b) are exactly the same, it is not divisi, but Gould suggests separate stem directions when writing the string in bracketed noteheads to properly group the harmonic and its fundamental visually.
In fact, one can argue that without the connecting stem, things are even more confusing, because it’s no longer clear on a first glance, which harmonic belongs to which string, especiall in the second example.
If you want a detached notehead below your harmonic, I don’t see how it tedious. Add a second voice, hide the stem, turn on bracketing, make it cue sized. Easily batch-doable, once the string-pitches have been entered in a second voice.
But expecting the software to automate this - if not wrong, then highly uncommon - notation is in my opinion dangerous to unaware users and would create many illegible results.
Dorico offers you a perfectly legible solution out of the box and will not stop you from going your own route. And this even quite easily, compared to the workarounds I have to deal with in my compositions.
