NOTATIO

OK. I won't tell anybody.

I would like e.g. if the program had much greater ability to enter tuplets with slurred (legato) brackets, dashed/dotted bracket, something completly different, which I can have full visual control what I wan't...full customisation on tuplets, not just only a number with a standard brackets. For now, I can see that this is the only have Finale and LilyPond ...(below is an example from Graphire Music Press) but I'm not entirely satisfied to make this type of tupplet in Finale to look more natural than we find it in a all classic score (forEx. Ricordi)
I think that Dorico have not a more powerful multi-purpose triplet option...yes? You can have this type but only with tricks not like real function.

You can always just use the number without a bracket and add the slur. There are easy ways to repeat this or apply it globally.

I agree with you, Den. The Finale triplet slur is not good and I am sorry to hear that Dorico doesn't have this option. In Finale, I use the non-bracket option and then draw each of the slurs by hand since each one has to fit the individual situation.

I am using the old triplet slur in my Beethoven Piano Sonata edition, as in the manuscripts and first editions. They placed the triplet sign on the note head side instead of the beam side, and often used a shorter slur to distinguish it from a normal slur: I have come to prefer it to the modern system for music of this period because it is more graceful than brackets and fits into the whole better. And having the number on the note head side gets one's attention. A negative is that it conflicts with fingering as one can see in the example. And brackets are certainly preferable in music that has complex tuplets.

I much prefer the slur in that situation as well, John.

Schonbergian wrote: ↑15 Aug 2020, 15:28 I much prefer the slur in that situation as well, John.

However, if a "slur" is used, I would prefer to have it really short. It doesn't need to cover/touch all notes. As the number is always centered it is easy to see what notes belong to it, and never be mistaken for a slur.

I wish newer programs could also have Custom options, especially for slurred tuplets / triplets notation function.
In Finale we have that option in Tuplet Definition dialog:

Can someone check this in Doric please yours?
These are screenshots from Dorico. They tell me these breaks can’t be erased in any way! Neither Ctrl-X nor Del etc. What exactly is it about? But if that’s true, (I’d like you to check out these simple things in Dorico), why can’t such a simple thing be done in one “The next generation music notation software”?
Or maybe this is something else...I don't know. Somebody send to me this and ask ..
In the second example, Chopen-Godowsky is an example of notation ...
I read past questions on other forums (Steinberg) and I also read the explanation of the respected Daniel Spreadbury who is also a member of this forum ...
If these notations cannot be done (as well as many many other complex notations) with Dorico, a slightly different question arises from an artistic distance. Will we always or constantly be slaves to "some higher mathematics" like robots and constantly adapt to the technique, or are we finally moving towards the creation of artistic expression so that the technique adapts to us? Wouldn't that be wonderful !? Unfortunately, I don't see it yet, not yet. So I'm very reticent about the huge propaganda of novelties, any, not just new software. But ... maybe an update was done in the meantime, so maybe it's possible to do this kind of notation..I don't know ... I remember the time and I knew great programmers who worked wonders with only 10-30Mb! They worked on their programs and converted it into super fast machine code like final product! Do you remember such extra fast and functional software, yes?
Only, there is an argumentative statement of many many users, and that is that with each update, constantly, the program works slower, slower and slower. Especially if there are a few hundred pages in the notation. I’ve checked that out and I think it’s a matter of something other than just the “complexity of the sheet music that’s entered into the program”.
I have a feeling that we are going a long way in both the technical and logical sense of making new software. Ah yes ... when I just remember what all people could put in some machines with only 48 - 50Kb! RAM and how it worked fantastically, then it reminded me of the old days when that kind of work was done well and logically.
There are many software, not only Dorico that offer something new, but after a while I feel very sad and maybe even looking for the impossible, and that is that the programs start working logically without too much cosmetic grooming and constant complication and the rule that can only be done as the program determines. This is probably the 21st century, I see some progress in that but not so much that I would now jump for joy. The finale and Sibelius are equally good programs and if only someone started thinking in a simpler way it would be easier and better for all of us. If I were to do such a program then it would be 100% simplicity, very simple and logical design, done in super fast code and ultimately converted to machine code!
That the same commands are not repeated on every screen, but that you can set them exactly as the engraver / composer imagines and many other very simple things. Of course, I'm aware of the fact that it's a very big bite and I admire all the people who try to do something like that, even if it "looks" like a serious program.
It’s really a huge undertaking by anyone who tackles the many situations that are needed in one more serious notation. If only there was a little more will, my choice would still be Finals and some older programs that have fantastic flexibility in work and in what YOU imagine and not what the program allows you to do or even superficially do. Some things look nice but ... I just hope for better, nothing else.

1. 2. Chopen-Godowsky notation example Here I have given my own view of what is happening but also what I would like to be corrected. Personally, I have no interest in my statement nor do I want to offend anyone, I am even more sorry for some people who still think that it is okay and I respect that and that we are in some technologically advanced progress but ... we have not moved much , not too much as the propaganda agenda is put and they try to sell something that will end up on their heads because some things are not working properly. Not just one, many .. Novelty yes, but not at any cost and not at the cost that users are burdened with technical "achievements".
Here I have just given a couple of examples of what newer software does - they don't work and it's not a matter of impossibility of programming but just simple music logic and the need for music notation, complex or simple, that is not important. Must have better and better funcionality and better logic. These are just some of my ideas and wishes in this topic and I have a lot of them.

Den wrote: ↑21 Aug 2020, 00:15 Can someone check this in Doric please yours?
These are screenshots from Dorico. They tell me these breaks can’t be erased in any way! Neither Ctrl-X nor Del etc. What exactly is it about? But if that’s true, (I’d like you to check out these simple things in Dorico), why can’t such a simple thing be done in one “The next generation music notation software”?

Because you need to understand how Dorico works with rests.
Rests can be either implicit, or explicit. You don't have to 'add' rests: they exist automatically between notes, grouping according to the rules in Notation Options. Explicit rests are ones that you have created with 'Force Duration'.

https://steinberg.help/dorico_pro/v3/en ... cit_c.html

In 4/4, I get this in Dorico by default.
It looks like you've got an explicit rest at the end of your bar. I can't think how else you'd achieve that.

Secondly, you can't Cut or Delete rests, because by default rests exist where there are no notes. However, there is a menu command 'Remove Rests' under the Edit menu.

Den wrote: ↑21 Aug 2020, 00:15Will we always or constantly be slaves to "some higher mathematics" like robots and constantly adapt to the technique, or are we finally moving towards the creation of artistic expression so that the technique adapts to us?

No. We're not 'slaves' to mathematics: we use maths as a tool to produce the results we want. We can't defy logic, though.

Of course music notation has been shaped by the technology (techniques) used to produce it. The italic nib, movable type and other processes have shaped the way that notation is written just as much as artistic desires. Computer technology has entirely changed the processes of graphic design, typography, and music is no exception.

benwiggy wrote: ↑21 Aug 2020, 08:08 ...
Because you need to understand how Dorico works with rests.
...
It looks like you've got an explicit rest at the end of your bar. I can't think how else you'd achieve that.
...
Secondly, you can't Cut or Delete rests, because by default rests exist where there ...
...we use maths as a tool to produce the results we want. We can't defy logic, though.

Dear Ben, try to understand what you say about Dorico and you can catch it what I mean.
I appreciate your effort to defend in some way how Dorico is conceived in this case. It's a good program, I didn't say anywhere that it wasn't, but ... just one of your sentences as Dorico's user explains everything and that raises a loooot of questions....
Why do I have to adapt to programmed software? Why doesn't he adapt to us? ie. how do we think, understand?
Human brain logic have more than maths, right?