# Dorico woes



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

there are many, but this is bugging me particularly... why are unmeasured tremolos linked to tempo? An unmeasured tremolo is played at the same speed no matter the tempo. So, I'm working on scores with a constantly changing tempo and tremolos go up and down like fools.
sh*t! 
PS who decided that tremolos had to be in the same category as repeat endings, repeat sections and jumps? Only because they are "repeated" notes? To me that looks like a failed attempt at being clever


----------



## Sean J (Oct 9, 2020)

Rob said:


> PS who decided that tremolos had to be in the same category as repeat endings, repeat sections and jumps? Only because they are "repeated" notes? To me that looks like a failed attempt at being clever



I brought this up to Steinberg a couple years ago. Composer workflow GUI, UX, library integration, PLAY tab window/lane overhaul... it's all been brought up, by many, for years. They ARE listening to composers, but their product management is simply engraver focused... which is why they keep adding brilliant composer-related features, but keep neglecting composer workflow in both big ways and tiny details. It's very much a core problem to address. I mentioned this too, and others have.

I'm not ranting. I quite like Dorico deep down. I just don't use it anymore. I write in StaffPad and if I ever need music engraved well, I suppose I have a tool that can do that. Different tools for a different purpose for me.


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 9, 2020)

Hi, Dorico's product manager here.

Short answer: You can specify in Playback Options how many strokes should be treated as an unmeasured tremolo. Click 'Save as Default' to make that change for all future projects.

Longer answer: Tremolos are repeats because they are a musical shorthand for repeated notes, on a smaller scale than repeat structures that repeat whole sections of music, sure. This classification is also not novel to Dorico: the book "Behind Bars" also covers tremolos in its chapter on repeats.

It's very quick to add tremolos to notes using the Shift+R popover: just type // for a two-stroke tremolo, for example.

The difficulty is that depending on the tempo of your piece, and indeed depending on the idiom, it might make sense for three or four strokes to produce an unmeasured tremolo. It's probably true to say that these days when composers write a tremolo, they almost always mean an unmeasured tremolo, and the kind of shorthand that was common in scores of the 18th and 19th centuries for e.g. ostinato rhythms in lower string parts is much less commonly used nowadays.

But Dorico doesn't know whether you're trying to reproduce an existing edition with its older performance practice, or writing something brand new, and you will always want an unmeasured tremolo.

However, if you think you would always prefer to have, say, three strokes produce an unmeasured tremolo, you can make that change in Playback Options and click 'Save as Default' to save that for all future projects you create. You can always change it on a project by project basis in future, too, of course.


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 9, 2020)

Sean J said:


> I brought this up to Steinberg a couple years ago. Composer workflow GUI, UX, library integration, PLAY tab window/lane overhaul... it's all been brought up, by many, for years. They ARE listening to composers, but their product management is simply engraver focused... which is why they keep adding brilliant composer-related features, but keep neglecting composer workflow in both big ways and tiny details. It's very much a core problem to address. I mentioned this too, and others have.



Our most recent major release back in May this year brought a number of significant improvements for people who are using virtual instruments and making use of Play mode. There's much greater flexibility in defining expression maps (including conditional switches, per-switch length/velocity controls, automatic mutual exclusion groups, per-map overrides for default playback options, better Cubase expression map import), better velocity editing in Play mode, endpoint configurations for MIDI devices (handy for people using external PCs to run VIs), better persistence of UI state in Play mode, default single-key key commands for the tools in Play mode, improved pitch bend editing in Play mode, display of the generated controller data in the automation lanes (so you can see the effect of the settings in the expression map), and so on.

That comes on top of the things we added in the previous major version in September last year, including a dedicated line for editing dynamics (that outputs the appropriate controllers defined in the expression map), independent voice routing for each voice on an instrument (including divisi) in Play mode, playback templates that can be automatically applied to recall specific plug-in/expression map configurations, UI improvements for naming and numbering plug-ins and outputs, etc. etc.

So we are working hard to meet the needs of users who are more focused on sound production and MIDI editing than on engraving, and we have plenty of further improvements planned in these areas, including further expansion of expression maps, improving the editors in Play mode, making those editors available in Write mode, smarter MIDI import, drag and drop of MIDI data bi-directionally between Dorico and Cubase, and so on.

Each new Dorico release will always have to balance the needs of a diverse set of users, so there will also undoubtedly be engraving-focused features in the next release, and also note input/editing features, and also education-focused features, etc., but to say that we are (or perhaps more bluntly that I am) "simply engraver focused" just doesn't really match reality. It's great to hear that StaffPad meets your needs – but if you don't use Dorico any more, perhaps you've not kept up with the changes that we *are* making to meet the needs of users like you.


----------



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

Daniel, thank you for your reply, but maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or I haven't understood your answer... I have no difficulty assigning an unmeasured tremolo to notes. My problem is that the speed of the unmeasured tremolo is expressed by Dorico (in Playback options/Timing) as a ratio to the quarter note. This makes it variable depending on the tempo...
Please see this little example, this is what I'm talking about:


----------



## Bollen (Oct 9, 2020)

Rob said:


> there are many, but this is bugging me particularly... why are unmeasured tremolos linked to tempo? An unmeasured tremolo is played at the same speed no matter the tempo. So, I'm working on scores with a constantly changing tempo and tremolos go up and down like fools.
> sh*t!
> PS who decided that tremolos had to be in the same category as repeat endings, repeat sections and jumps? Only because they are "repeated" notes? To me that looks like a failed attempt at being clever


@Daniel S. beat me to it, although I don't fully agree with his statement about "meeting the needs of the composer's". The team is very much "engraver focused" which shows by their revolutionary approach to those areas in contrast to the terrible design choices they have made to the Play editor. It's like they don't have a clue how these tools are used by the majority. I've been very vocal about the need to fix what's in the program first and worry about features later. I appreciate and respect their commitment to engraving, but I'm sure I speak for many, particularly in this forum, we need you to fix the zoom, mouse tools, navigation, etc in the play windows, we didn't need an extra lane for dynamics before that. Write and Engrave mode are genius though!

In terms of tremolo, if you're using a library that has a "tremolo" patch, you're better off having Dorico play a regular note and just triggering the keyswitch. Otherwise you get some pretty awful artifacts.

PS: after a small period of resistance I realised that tremolos really belong in repetitions. Is not actually an articulation from a player point of view.


----------



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

Bollen said:


> ...
> 
> In terms of tremolo, if you're using a library that has a "tremolo" patch, you're better off having Dorico play a regular note and just triggering the keyswitch. Otherwise you get some pretty awful artifacts.
> 
> PS: after a small period of resistance I realised that tremolos really belong in repetitions. Is not actually an articulation from a player point of view.


yes, that's what I'm actually do... but Noteperformer, as an example, doesn't have a sampled tremolo, and suffers for this limitation. I think the idea to link the unmeasured tremolo to tempo is wrong, that's my point.
And, no, as a player myself, I don't see tremolos as repetitions. It's a way of playing a note, like trills or flatterzunge, it's either a technique or an articulation...


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 9, 2020)

Rob, take a look at the attached project, which shows that unmeasured tremolos are in fact not tempo-dependent. The project contains four identical half notes with four-stroke tremolos at four different tempos, 120bpm, 90bpm, 60bpm and 30bpm. As you will hear, the rate of repetition is the same in all four bars.

Three- or four-stroke tremolos by default will play back like this, so I guess you are writing two-stroke tremolos and expecting them to be unmeasured. If so, go to the Timing page of Playback Options and set 'Minimum number of strokes for playback of unmeasured tremolos' to 2 instead of 3.


----------



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> Rob, take a look at the attached project, which shows that unmeasured tremolos are in fact not tempo-dependent. The project contains four identical half notes with four-stroke tremolos at four different tempos, 120bpm, 90bpm, 60bpm and 30bpm. As you will hear, the rate of repetition is the same in all four bars.
> 
> Three- or four-stroke tremolos by default will play back like this, so I guess you are writing two-stroke tremolos and expecting them to be unmeasured. If so, go to the Timing page of Playback Options and set 'Minimum number of strokes for playback of unmeasured tremolos' to 2 instead of 3.


Daniel, have you seen the mp4 I've attached above? It shows a four stroke tremolo being completely uneven... off to try your project


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 9, 2020)

For whatever reason, I can only hear that example and not see it, so I'm none the wiser as to what's actually going on there.


----------



## ptram (Oct 9, 2020)

Bollen said:


> we need you to fix the zoom, mouse tools, navigation, etc in the play windows, we didn't need an extra lane for dynamics before that.


While I concur that navigation has to be greatly improved, I find that the dynamics lanes are as revolutionary as the innovations they did in the Write and Engrave mode. Being able to access to the coarse and fine controls of the most important parameters for expression, is what is making Dorico a very powerful composition tool.

Paolo


----------



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> For whatever reason, I can only hear that example and not see it, so I'm none the wiser as to what's actually going on there.


Daniel, will you please tie all the notes in your example so to have a single long note? That causes the problem here... I think the problem is when we have a long held note and tempo changes through the bars


----------



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

I've just found out that trills exhibit a similar bizarre behavior...


----------



## Bollen (Oct 9, 2020)

ptram said:


> While I concur that navigation has to be greatly improved, I find that the dynamics lanes are as revolutionary as the innovations they did in the Write and Engrave mode. Being able to access to the coarse and fine controls of the most important parameters for expression, is what is making Dorico a very powerful composition tool.
> 
> Paolo


Sure, but that was already there in the form of either CC or velocity. The extra lane was unnecessary, but welcomed! Just the wrong priority. Say you're using VSL or 8dio, they both require two controls for dynamics, not one. But at the same time you're struggling to do any edits because the zoom and navigation work differently than any other program in the world.... I pull my hair out!


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 9, 2020)

Right, yes, that would indeed explain it, because Dorico isn't segmenting that note at the tempo changes. I suggest you use slurs instead of ties to join them together, and set the 'Suppress playback' property on the slurs (to avoid them changing the overall duration of the written note in order to make them more legato). The attached project shows what I mean.

Trills are a similar case; we segment trills according to any changes of pitch in the trill interval (or even changes of pitch of successive notes, if you're doing the peculiar but not unheard-of thing of writing a single trill over a series of different pitches), but we don't segment them according to tempo changes.

I'll discuss this with Paul, who is the main developer on Dorico's playback engine, but in the meantime hopefully you will find you can achieve acceptable results by using slurs instead of ties.


----------



## Rob (Oct 9, 2020)

thanks a lot Daniel, that can be a temporary fix... it's nice to see a developer listen and take care of user's remarks. Well, now I need to go and change manually all of the ties when a tremolo or trill is involved on the 150 pages orchestral score that I have to do the audio of. Not really complaining, there are much worse jobs than this


----------



## ptram (Oct 9, 2020)

Bollen said:


> that was already there in the form of either CC or velocity.


The Dynamics and CC lanes are doing different things, however.

- With the Dynamics lane you fine-edit the original dynamic markings found in the score. This can be useful when you want that a written 'f' is played stronger in a leading voice.

- The CC lane gives access to the data generated by the humanize algorithms of Dorico. There, you can find, for example, the first beat already stressed.

I would edit Dynamics as a musical interpretation; CCs as the fine programming, to gain full control on the playback.

Paolo


----------



## Bollen (Oct 9, 2020)

ptram said:


> The Dynamics and CC lanes are doing different things, however.
> 
> - With the Dynamics lane you fine-edit the original dynamic markings found in the score. This can be useful when you want that a written 'f' is played stronger in a leading voice.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes I said I welcomed the addition, just that it shouldn't have been a priority when the Play window is so difficult to work with... Anyway, we're hijacking the thread. Always nice to chat with you though...


----------



## Sean J (Oct 10, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> ...but to say that we are (or perhaps more bluntly that I am) "simply engraver focused" just doesn't really match reality. It's great to hear that StaffPad meets your needs – but if you don't use Dorico any more, perhaps you've not kept up with the changes that we *are* making to meet the needs of users like you.



Daniel,

I read your release notes on each new build. I also periodically test Dorico to see if I can work quickly enough in it. Engraver focused isn't a jab and doesn't mean engraver exclusive. You guys do great work and add great composing features. But 100 more features on Expression Maps isn't the same as 2 or 3 "right" features. A tap to add pre-mapped instruments and a tap to swap them is 2 things done right with you think about what the ideal composer UX is.

I'm confident Dorico will get there. I just see a company trying to please several user types, thus each area takes time. I'm sympathetic to that. StaffPad focuses exclusively on composer workflow, thus I use it to write with, but... I'm making notation-friendly synth libraries and plan to show them off in Dorico. So I'm not anti-Dorico by any means. IMHO, it's the most beautiful looking notation program by far. The intelligence in how you've designed everything is also to be commended. I followed Making Notes early on. Great stuff. I just don't like adding/editing notes, techniques, performances, and general writing right now. If that changes, I'd use Dorico before anything else because it does everything else so absolutely right IMHO.

Sorry if I came off the wrong way. I've never been a word smith. Best I compose instead.


----------



## Bollen (Oct 12, 2020)

Sean J said:


> But 100 more features on Expression Maps isn't the same as 2 or 3 "right" features. A tap to add pre-mapped instruments and a tap to swap them is 2 things done right with you think about what the ideal composer UX is.


We'll put! And I also believe this is a hangover from Sibelius days, when expression maps (or whatever they were called back then) were the only workaround to get an old architecture like that to use modern sample libraries for playback. Consequently we have one or two generations of composers now stuck with the idea, and the demand to developers, that this outmoded system be included into notation programs.

I understand Daniel and the team's dilemma. They have a vocal majority demanding an inefficient feature because they got used to it back when technology wasn't up to the task (remember that most notation programs were designed years before sample libraries even existed), whereas we are not as vocal or loud as we should be.


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 12, 2020)

Well, if you hold the keys to the kingdom for a better way, you shouldn't be keeping them to yourself. Or do you just mean that you want the editors in Dorico to work the same way they do in Cubase (in which case your opinion is already well-known to us)? Thanks!


----------



## Sean J (Oct 12, 2020)

Bollen said:


> We'll put! And I also believe this is a hangover from Sibelius days, when expression maps (or whatever they were called back then) were the only workaround to get an old architecture like that to use modern sample libraries for playback.



Sibelius had "Sound Sets", similar to notion, maps, and others. It's glorified XML for users. That's all.



Bollen said:


> Consequently we have one or two generations of composers now stuck with the idea, and the demand to developers, that this outmoded system be included into notation programs.



Exactly! Most companies have added what people asked for, instead of thinking about the job to do. Any developer can listen to feedback and say "hmm... okay, I can do that..." and think about how they can make functionality fit in their current code. Steven Jobs was at least very keen on this point: You HAVE to design around customer experience first, always. THEN you build that design exactly. Don't tell people you've reinvented a toaster that's better... but they'll have to figure out how to turn it on. Again, if you have to explain it, it's not that good. Thus the in-app store point.

Dorico actually follows that philosophy for engraving I think. The talk about doing everything the way you would have on your own, is exactly right. It's very "automatically intelligent" in engraving. And playback, well... the framework is there to allow that. It just needs more on the surface I guess. But I believe it will get there.


----------



## Sean J (Oct 12, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> Well, if you hold the keys to the kingdom for a better way, you shouldn't be keeping them to yourself.



I hope this isn't a jab at me. I haven't been keeping my ideas to myself. I've posted many of them in the Dorico forum, just not lately as I realize things take time. I do have strong views on what is ideal, but I'm sorry about being as blunt as I am. My experience and frustrations as a user inform that, but I do cherish Dorico updates as they come.

Best,
Sean


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 13, 2020)

Sean J said:


> I hope this isn't a jab at me. I haven't been keeping my ideas to myself. I've posted many of them in the Dorico forum, just not lately as I realize things take time. I do have strong views on what is ideal, but I'm sorry about being as blunt as I am. My experience and frustrations as a user inform that, but I do cherish Dorico updates as they come.



It's not a jab at anybody, Sean. But if Bollen believes he knows the secret of what it would take to transform Dorico into the perfect tool for him and, so far as he believes, for many others, then it's self-defeating not to say what those things are. We obviously can't implement something that meets your requirements if you won't tell us what your requirements are.

And I think it's also a misapprehension to think that Dorico uses expression maps because Sibelius uses sound sets or because Cubase uses expression maps. There is a reason why every sophisticated application that allows you to use arbitrary sound libraries provides tools that provide a mapping between musical concepts like changes of playing technique and articulation and the MIDI controls required to trigger those musical concepts in the library (it's not only Sibelius, Cubase and Dorico but Notion, Logic, and on, and on).

The only reason that, say, StaffPad does *not* prevent this kind of functionality to the end user is that you cannot use arbitrary sample libraries with the product, and David has built the whole playback engine of StaffPad around his own expert knowledge of how to produce a lively sound from virtual instruments, plus the incredible labour he has expended in rebuilding and reprogramming each of these third party sound libraries to mould them into a standardised form that StaffPad can drive. But you can absolutely be sure that something like an expression map forms a part of that system: however, you as the end user do not need to take the time to work them out or build them.

We are taking steps within the time and resources we have available to work with third parties to produce expression maps and playback templates for major libraries – Spitfire's BBC SO is already complete, and we are collaborating with VSL at the moment, with more to follow in the future – and our user community is also sharing their efforts.

The ideal future for a Dorico user would be one in which every sound library he or she would like to use is seamlessly integrated, and ideally no user would have to spend time working on producing expression maps, but we're some way away from that.

Nevertheless, expression maps, or something like them, are a necessity, and until some impossible-to-imagine future in which all sample libraries are completely standardised, they will remain so. Our job is to make working with them as invisible and as seamless as possible in the meantime.

However, it seems to me that Bollen believes there is another, completely different approach that puts the lie to my assertion that expression maps, or something like them, are a necessity. Bollen, the floor is yours: please set me straight.


----------



## Sean J (Oct 13, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> It's not a jab at anybody, Sean. But if Bollen believes he knows the secret of what it would take to transform Dorico into the perfect tool for him and, so far as he believes, for many others, then it's self-defeating not to say what those things are. We obviously can't implement something that meets your requirements if you won't tell us what your requirements are.



lol, k. I misread and got a bit confused, sorry. 



Daniel S. said:


> ...to think that Dorico uses expression maps because Sibelius uses sound sets...



Well, you have a point there. But for most users I'd think that point would be lost as usage is all we think about by default, not dev history or context. To be fair to Dorico, this isn't a one-company challenge to deal with... not even remotely. But on the flip side, I think this will always come up until the day comes where this simply isn't an issue, whether using Spitfire Symphonic series (what I use) or 8dio Century, etc. That said, I appreciate you letting us know you're working with sample devs. I know it takes time, so I'll leave this point alone.

I'll let Bollen speak for himself, but it seemed to me he was more just agreeing about how on the front end, the StaffPad approach makes all mapping features in various programs seem like a moot point for what users will want.... not necessarily that he has some tricks up his sleeve. That's how I took it.

Bollen?


----------



## Daniel S. (Oct 13, 2020)

Sean J said:


> ...the StaffPad approach makes all mapping features in various programs seem like a moot point for what users will want...



Well, of course, but you do understand how this is being achieved by StaffPad, right? David Hearn has obtained the raw sample data from all of these third parties and completely reprogrammed every library into a form that can be driven by StaffPad. It's not using the same version of, say, the Spitfire Symphonic Series that you can download to your computer from Spitfire, but a completely new library of David's design built on the sample content from that library.

This is of course an amazingly clever and direct way around the problem of how to map musical concepts onto the specifics of a particular sound library, since it allows StaffPad to address all sample libraries in a similar (if not identical) way... but even assuming it were practical for us at Steinberg to take Spitfire's raw sample content and fashion a whole new library out of it for Dorico to drive, do you think that it would be practical for you to have two whole sets of the Spitfire sounds on your computer, one for Cubase/Pro Tools/Logic or whatever and another only for Dorico? Even if we could use the same kind of compression technology that StaffPad employs (based on the Opus compression format, as I understand it) so that the library takes up only a tenth of its normal, uncompressed size (at the expense of some – inaudible? – loss of audio quality, of course, due to the nature of the compression), would you be happy to not only have that library on your drive twice, but also to pay for it twice? (I guess perhaps the answer to this is "yes", since you presumably have indeed paid for it for your iPad and for your PC or Mac at some point, but would you really be willing to pay for it twice to use it on the same machine in different applications?)

StaffPad changes the game because it is the first and at present only application of its type on its chosen platforms (OK, technically the Surface is just running Windows, but I'd argue that Surface users on the whole aren't running Cubase/Pro Tools etc. on their Surfaces). Dorico has to work within the existing ecosystem of DAWs, virtual instruments, etc. etc. on the desktop.

This is not in any way to detract from StaffPad (and David's) brilliance. But what works for StaffPad won't necessarily work for Dorico or other applications on the desktop.


----------



## Sean J (Oct 13, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> Well, of course, but you do understand how this is being achieved by StaffPad, right?



Yes. And yes, I appreciate your position here.



Daniel S. said:


> ...even assuming it were practical for us at Steinberg to take Spitfire's raw sample content and fashion a whole new library out of it for Dorico to drive, do you think that it would be practical for you to have two whole sets of the Spitfire sounds on your computer......... but also to pay for it twice? ...would you really be willing to pay for it twice to use it on the same machine in different applications?



VERY good points, and stuff I had previously thought about and since forgot. Although you've also made me remember another point which makes me feel foolish to have ever complained in the first place about expression maps. So I'll concede the point.

I've merged mics (for a more close studio sound, A/B'd to JW's Raider's score) and edit my Kontakt instruments beyond what most users will do. I have a very playable Spitfire (more like Infinite Brass in playability), that crossfades to trem/trill.

1) Smarter instruments are far more needed than smarter integration of maps IMHO. Infinite Brass doesn't even need maps. David's editing of samples has more to do with sample devs not editing their instruments FOR notation. I've asked many too for years. I'm fine not holding this against Dorico.

2) I'd LOVE to have my library in StaffPad, so yes... there's a tradeoff. I've yet to try it in Dorico as I've only recently finished editing everything. But I did say on another thread that even if Dorico copied SP on the pre-mapped sample store, I'd still use SP due to the workflow.

As for Dorico's workflow....

While you had a point about whether I've kept up with your updates... I have actually, but only in reading the release notes of each update. That's not the same as *using *the program. I'll buy the 3.5 update soon and give it solid finishing of a song and see if I can make it work for me. I won't worry about maps so much, just using the program to compose. The only thing I really care about deep down is if I can write quickly and comfortably with it, and get a reasonable mock-up out of it.


----------



## Bollen (Oct 13, 2020)

OK, sorry for not replying sooner, but I've been very busy with work. @Daniel S. let's begin with the premise that I'm a devoted Dorico user, I praise it and recommend it to everyone since version 2.something. My "constructive" criticisms has been voiced many times (I usually allow a few months after updates) in the Dorico forum where it belongs. Here in VI-Control, we occasionally do some Dorico bashing because well... Why not? 😜. We're frustrated with how the Play window works, but some of us appreciate the "little" improvements that have taken place.

I have no secrets, I am an old fashioned composer that until Staffpad came around I was still doing all my sketches in paper. I have worked professionally with real musicians for 25 years and I also play many instruments decently, so I know what they do, how they do it and how they sound intimately. Sheet music is a wonderful system to transmit musical ideas, it's akin to the written word. However, it only transmits an approximation and a great deal of stylistic and historical studies are needed to interpret the music on a piece of paper. This takes HUMANS many years to learn, understand and master, so how could an XML file and some humanisation rules expect to cope with this monumental endeavour?

This is precisely the reason I find Dorico so revolutionary! Because it allows me to write music and immediately rehearse with the "virtual" musician to get _It_ to perform the written music as I intend it. As you point out, there's no standardisation of libraries, so until that happens things need to be done manually. Dorico has provided us with a tool to achieve this, but it's awful, cumbersome, contradictory and well... Just frustrating! The very first thing I would have done, and already said it above, is make sure that the tools that are already in the program work well i.e. easy access to lanes, scroll/navigation that is consistent with the rest of the program (and every other program in the world), an easy way to input keyswitches, tools on the mouse right click menu, etc. All these things I've said before. Here's a new thought, why not have a shortcut that you click on a staff in Write mode and it opens the editor for that instrument in Play at maximum screen height with all the lanes opened (velocity, CC, etc.)?

One last thought: most high-end sample libraries contain "techniques" that don't actually have a notated marking. The sheet music might just have quavers and crotchets, but the instrument would play all sorts of combinations of detache, legato, vib/no-vib, etc. Not to mention big variations of dynamics and tunning. A musician would play them and I would program them, an XML won't do any of it, because it's not notated.


----------



## Sean J (Oct 13, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Here's a new thought, why not have a shortcut that you click on a staff in Write mode and it opens the editor for that instrument in Play at maximum screen height with all the lanes opened (velocity, CC, etc.)?



I love the idea because navigating to the same place is the biggest pain point I think, including the point about expanding lanes, at least velocity and dynamics. Lane management and sizing has felt wonky (a pre 3.5 opinion though). I made a point very similar to this early on, but... way too early on. Play navigation improvements were still needed either way. It's worth saying that this exact idea may not be what Dorico needs... but it illustrates an issue worth addressing at least. I do like the idea in one way though. It's fast, less mouse miles, less clicks. I'm all about fast workflow!



Bollen said:


> One last thought: most high-end sample libraries contain "techniques" that don't actually have a notated marking. The sheet music might just have quavers and crotchets, but the instrument would play all sorts of combinations of detache, legato, vib/no-vib, etc. Not to mention big variations of dynamics and tunning. A musician would play them and I would program them, an XML won't do any of it, because it's not notated.



I know you're replying to Daniel, but I'm not sure I entirely understand.

For something like a "fast legato", I'd say it shouldn't be a notation marking but a more agile virtual instrument that does this automatically, the way a real player would... automatically. Vib and non-vib exist in Dorico and can be mapped to playback already... if you want to control each passage with subtle nuance, then you could always add those markings more and hide the ones that you wouldn't want seen. Not elegant, but it might be necessary depending on how much mock-up control you want.

Detache vs legato would simply be whether you use a slur or not, no? Between combinations of slurs, staccatos, tenutos, and other markings, is there a specific technique you find you can't do?

Spitfire, by default, doesn't behave very intelligently like Infinite, which I have found to be cumbersome in notation without more intelligent swapping of techniques based on what fits the passage. But... with Conditions added to maps in 3.5, that's likely resolved. It's more work than I want to map.  But it seems you should be able to do what you want currently, unless I'm missing something (quite possible).


----------



## Bollen (Oct 13, 2020)

Sean J said:


> if you want to control each passage with subtle nuance, then you could always add those markings more and hide the ones that you wouldn't want seen. Not elegant, but it might be necessary depending on how much mock-up control you want.


Sure, that's how I use to do it in Sibelius, but that takes 10, 20 times longer than just inputting keyswitches. If a regular phrase, that has no specific markings, uses about 4 different "techniques" for example legato, detache long, detache short and cresc. That's 6 characters for the 1st, 12 for the 2nd, 13 for the 3rd, etc. you get the point and then I have to hide them. Whereas each one is only 1 keyswitch! Normally what I do in Dorico is I copy the music to a staff below, Lock rhythms and quickly input all the necessary keyswitches using my MIDI keyboard. Then select the whole staff and offset to -10. It's really quick and I can do about two pages in under a minute. Then I also have to hide the staff though. 

Now if we had a dedicated Keyswitch lane, that's already displaced by -10, that only showed up in Galley View and already had all the rhythms in, well... Then I could edit a whole score in just a few minutes! one can dream...!


----------



## Sean J (Oct 13, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Sure, that's how I use to do it in Sibelius, but that takes 10, 20 times longer than just inputting keyswitches. If a regular phrase, that has no specific markings, uses about 4 different "techniques" for example legato, detache long, detache short and cresc. That's 6 characters for the 1st, 12 for the 2nd, 13 for the 3rd, etc. you get the point and then I have to hide them. Whereas each one is only 1 keyswitch! Normally what I do in Dorico is I copy the music to a staff below, Lock rhythms and quickly input all the necessary keyswitches using my MIDI keyboard. Then select the whole staff and offset to -10. It's really quick and I can do about two pages in under a minute. Then I also have to hide the staff though.
> 
> Now if we had a dedicated Keyswitch lane, that's already displaced by -10, that only showed up in Galley View and already had all the rhythms in, well... Then I could edit a whole score in just a few minutes! one can dream...!



Crap, now I have to admit to Daniel that I'm not as caught up as I'd like to be... again.

I do read those notes. I swear! BUT...

I'm not sure if Dorico 3.5 has added this yet, but the XML for maps DOES include an option for a tick offset for keyswitches. I'm not sure if Dorico playback actually utilizes this yet, but if so then keyswitches should already be possible to offset on the same staff/lane.

If playback supports it and it's not in the GUI, I did at least include the tick option in my Dorico technique mapper. See the Drive folder in this thread.

And sorry to the OP. I realize this gets further away from the thread than talk of how to improve Dorico workflow. If anyone wants to ask me about the mappers, post on the other thread instead.


----------



## Bollen (Oct 13, 2020)

Sean J said:


> I'm not sure if Dorico 3.5 has added this yet, but the XML for maps DOES include an option for a tick offset for keyswitches


Yes it does, but I'm talking about manual input, I already argued about why the automatic system doesn't cut it...


Sean J said:


> And sorry to the OP. I realize this gets further away from the thread than talk of how to improve Dorico workflow


Yeah me too... We really should've started a new thread... Sorry @Rob


----------



## Rob (Oct 13, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Yes it does, but I'm talking about manual input, I already argued about why the automatic system doesn't cut it...
> 
> Yeah me too... We really should've started a new thread... Sorry @Rob


No worries, nothing wrong with diverging a bit... Daniel has already replied to my post


----------



## ZeroZero (Nov 29, 2020)

Daniel S. said:


> Hi, Dorico's product manager here.
> 
> Short answer: You can specify in Playback Options how many strokes should be treated as an unmeasured tremolo. Click 'Save as Default' to make that change for all future projects.
> 
> ...



Daniel you do such fabulous support, here you are on VI ! Your a credit to Stienberg. I used to follow your blogs. I just took the plunge and bought Dorico! No doubt I will be posting about Cubase integration  Anyway. Just thank you for all you do.


----------



## Daniel S. (Nov 29, 2020)

If you need anything, just let me know.


----------



## gzapper (Dec 3, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Sure, that's how I use to do it in Sibelius, but that takes 10, 20 times longer than just inputting keyswitches. If a regular phrase, that has no specific markings, uses about 4 different "techniques" for example legato, detache long, detache short and cresc. That's 6 characters for the 1st, 12 for the 2nd, 13 for the 3rd, etc. you get the point and then I have to hide them. Whereas each one is only 1 keyswitch! Normally what I do in Dorico is I copy the music to a staff below, Lock rhythms and quickly input all the necessary keyswitches using my MIDI keyboard. Then select the whole staff and offset to -10. It's really quick and I can do about two pages in under a minute. Then I also have to hide the staff though.
> 
> Now if we had a dedicated Keyswitch lane, that's already displaced by -10, that only showed up in Galley View and already had all the rhythms in, well... Then I could edit a whole score in just a few minutes! one can dream...!



You need better expression maps.
I'm using the BBCSCO with map and I don't want keyswitches, its much faster to shift H a hairpin in or write 'pizz' or 'flautando' see it on the paper and let Dorico do the keyswitches.

I don't know what libraries you're using but if you spent a day or so on the expression maps you could speed up your workflow quite a bit, I expect. You can add techniques to the expression map to for every technique you want on each instrument.

(caveat - I work mostly in a DAW, Dorico less often and only started doing orch work in it)


----------



## Bollen (Dec 4, 2020)

gzapper said:


> You need better expression maps.
> I'm using the BBCSCO with map and I don't want keyswitches, its much faster to shift H a hairpin in or write 'pizz' or 'flautando' see it on the paper and let Dorico do the keyswitches.
> 
> I don't know what libraries you're using but if you spent a day or so on the expression maps you could speed up your workflow quite a bit, I expect. You can add techniques to the expression map to for every technique you want on each instrument.
> ...


Yes, I think we're talking about completely different things. It's not just about workflow speed, but also about realistic playback. An expression map has and always will sound atrocious, because it's just following notation markings and not musical context.


----------



## gzapper (Dec 4, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Yes, I think we're talking about completely different things. It's not just about workflow speed, but also about realistic playback. An expression map has and always will sound atrocious, because it's just following notation markings and not musical context.



Possibly we are and I'm sure the orch work I do is not on your level, since its not my main thing. All I know is that with the BBCSO new template I can access all the keyswitches through playing technique and dynamic markings, that there's not much I feel the need to add as keyswitches. Working that way is just so much nicer in general as you see all the keyswitches as instructions in the score. The new expression maps allow you to map pretty much every way, but its a pain in the ass. I had built my own expression map for BBC before the legit one came out and it worked, but had some issues. The new one seems quite good. Just finished a 15 minute operetta piece with BBC but have been mostly working on a commissioned sci fi chamber opera for 3 singers and a mainstage rig, those battles have been more about program change and notating controller info. 

I'm sure you're working off of multiple libraries all with their own key switch protocols and problems. Probably sounds way nicer though I'm pretty happy with the BBC for more symphonic and less film like sound. Also likely depends on if you're outputting for film, film demos or for players. 

What things do you think an expression map can't do?


----------



## mducharme (Dec 4, 2020)

gzapper said:


> What things do you think an expression map can't do?



Performers do some shaping automatically that isn't necessarily indicated in the score. For instance, if they have a long note with no dynamic indications, they are unlikely to play it at exactly the same dynamic level throughout and suddenly cut it off at the end at full volume. Expression maps can interpret what is written on the score, but they cannot add things that performers would naturally do that are not indicated in the written score.


----------



## Rob (Dec 6, 2020)

One thing, and I don't know if it's me or not: when editing cc data in the cc lanes in Play tab, any new line I draw completely messes the previous ones. I can only re-draw the passage in a single pass. I'm gonna post a little video example later


----------



## ptram (Dec 6, 2020)

Rob said:


> One thing, and I don't know if it's me or not: when editing cc data in the cc lanes in Play tab, any new line I draw completely messes the previous ones. I can only re-draw the passage in a single pass.


 
Dorico line endpoints can't be blended with an existing one. I find it very annoying and time consuming, and hope this will be changed.

The only workaround I could find was to set the resolution to a low value, and end a line next to an existing endpoint.

Paolo


----------



## Rob (Dec 6, 2020)

ptram said:


> Dorico line endpoints can't be blended with an existing one. I find it very annoying and time consuming, and hope this will be changed.
> 
> The only workaround I could find was to set the resolution to a low value, and end a line next to an existing endpoint.
> 
> Paolo


yes, that's what 's happening to me as well... really annoying


----------



## Bollen (Dec 7, 2020)

gzapper said:


> ust finished a 15 minute operetta piece with BBC but have been mostly working on a commissioned sci fi chamber opera for 3 singers


Wow! That sounds exciting, would love to hear it...! I'm a fan of both...😜!



gzapper said:


> What things do you think an expression map can't do?


Pretty much what @mducharme said, there are way too many things a real instrumentalist would do (and I would normally program in) that are not part of a score. Some libraries have these patches others don't, presumably BBC does not and hence why you don't realise. VSL for example has tons of patches that have different attacks, transition types, dynamics, etc. These are pretty much exclusively performed by a musician's own musical taste/judgement and if you program them in you get very realistic performances, but sometimes that means a different keyswitch per note...😱


----------



## gzapper (Dec 7, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Wow! That sounds exciting, would love to hear it...! I'm a fan of both...😜!


Thanks, the operetta will be part of two night theatre production of Mahabharata up here in 2021. So it won't be public for a while, though its written now.
The sci-fi opera will have a workshop this summer and hopefully a run in 2021 as well. Darn pandemic.




> Pretty much what @mducharme said, there are way too many things a real instrumentalist would do (and I would normally program in) that are not part of a score. Some libraries have these patches others don't, presumably BBC does not and hence why you don't realise. VSL for example has tons of patches that have different attacks, transition types, dynamics, etc. These are pretty much exclusively performed by a musician's own musical taste/judgement and if you program them in you get very realistic performances, but sometimes that means a different keyswitch per note...😱



True, though I've been finding the legato patches on BBC and Embertone instruments have smart enough scripting that performance and notation elements carry a lot that detail. But I'd love to hear those results some time in your work, I'm sure I could learn a ton for my more rudimentary programming. Just from my end the idea of just notating a piece and hearing passable playback is pretty mind blowing. Also depends on your notation ideals, I'm from more of a jazzer background where less is more, general instructions get you places quicker, vs the detail every articulation of every note type new music composer.


----------



## Bollen (Dec 7, 2020)

gzapper said:


> Also depends on your notation ideals, I'm from more of a jazzer background where less is more, general instructions get you places quicker, vs the detail every articulation of every note type new music composer.


Precisely why then... As a jazzer you should know that a bunch of meagre quavers are extremely complex in their performance, in woodwinds the upbeat is tongued, while the downbeat is slurred and if tongued then is a soft one. Emphasis on certain beats, that would be technically an "accent" patch, are never written but idiomatically always performed, etc. Classical is not that different and it's the determining factor between a dead performance and lively one...

I also prefer simpler notation, I rather be surprised by the choices of the performer instead of annoyed at the omissions of my anal over-notating...😂


----------

