Hi,
How can I achieve this grouping automatically?
I’ve tried several different combinations in the input meter popup, but none works.
Thanks
Best
-m
How about
SHIFT+M [5+5]/8 hidden.
Then you only have to use Force Duration on the first measure with a 5/4 time signature.
[EDIT: above approach not working so far]
The only way I found to make the measure to look as you wish is to use nested tuplets.
Untitled Project 2.dorico (1.4 MB)
(But personally, I wouldn’t use the 5/4 time signature for this rhythm.)
No kidding! The beam pattern and the time signature are totally contradictory.
I do not know the actual music, mikeheels quotes, but there exist examples of {music in two different time signatures simultaneously}, like e. g. 5/4 and 5/8.
I happen to know a (wonderful) composition in 5/2 and 5/4 simultaneously.
Anyway, if a notation layout exists “in the real music world”, then Dorico ought to be able to, somehow create that notation layout.
The solution may sometimes require a tedious, time consuming workaround, but there ought to be a way to do it.
This can be made to work! Force the beaming in bar 1 and enter the hidden [5+5]/8 time sig in bar 2 as @Derrek describes (you’ll get 10 eighth notes beamed together). Then, in Notation options, choose this setting:
According to the description and the images, this should not have any effect whatsoever on a bar filled with eighth notes, but behold:
Yet another example of the black box that is Notation options. 
This will of course affect beam groupings in other time signatures in the flow as well. If that’s a problem, I’d either force the beaming in one bar, copy/paste and then change the notes with lock duration, or perhaps use hidden 5:5 eighth note tuplets (no need for nested tuplets). Which one is more workable depends on the music you’re entering.
Why should that be? People write a lot of bogus notation, jn the real world. The prime directive in my opinion, is clarity. This is noot clear to the player although it may ‘look neat’.
Dorico can do most things. But only a subset of these are automatic. All the others will require some manual intervention.
If the grouping is consistent for all players then this might very well be perfectly clear (I’m playing a piece right now that has some 20/16 bars divided in 4 beats of 5 sixteenths each. I’m not saying it’s my cup of tea, but it is clear to every player what’s going on there).
We don’t know the context of OP’s example. Dorico is able to achieve this, but unconventional notation might require some unconventional methods.
The option you are showing is for beaming groups of 16th notes — of course it wouldn’t/shouldn’t affect 8th note groups. 
Isn’t the appropriate (and relevant) option a bit farther up in the list:
Not meaning to be judgmental — I’m still learning, and sometimes this seems like a black box to me! 
-– Jim
Me too.
Jesper
But it does. I don’t know why. Did you try it? (I’m not defending that behavior, I think you’re absolutely right. I posted this because OP needs a practical solution).
I learned from the beginning that Notation options often require a lot of experimentation because a lot of those options don’t do what their description says, or do a lot more. I’d love to see that addressed some time.
For me, in a [5+5]/8 TS, setting this option:
..does not break the beams. I still get ten eighths beamed together. Only when changing this option:
..I get the result I would have expected from the top option alone.
@Zalde- I didn’t try it yet; just woke up (East Coast, USA)! I’ll take your word for it - that the 8th notes option doesn’t work. That does make a black box out of this. Perhaps someone from Steinberg can chime in to elucidate! Why should 8th note beaming not work until the 16th note option is selected (even when no 16ths exist)?
That’s interesting! Actually neither of the two options matches the situation exactly. The first one normally applies to eighth notes in time signatures with a quarter‑note denominator, and the second one to 16th notes in time signatures with an eighth note denominator.
In your case, you have eighth‑note/eighth‑note denominator. And it’s the second option that works. So, here it looks like the denominator is more important that the note value…
Just trying to understand 
Personally, I find all the beam options to be very unclear and perhaps in need of a rethink.
A total guess, but it might be that compound, or uneven, time signatures behave like two separate bars but the algorithm treats each as a smaller version of the whole.
So a 6/8 bar is treated as 2 x 6/16 (rather than 2 x 3/8)?
Hi mike,
I would create a tuplet 5:5 and then hide number and bracket. If you then copy it in the next bars, you can use it as a sort of template for the pattern. I know it’s not an automatic solution but that is one I would like personally.
Regarding the quérelle originated by this particular notation choice, I think I can understand it as a polyrhythmic situation of concurrent 5/8 and 5/4 rhythmic flows. That’s how I would interpret it in a piece. Though, I should look at the whole piece to give a more comprehensive analysis
It all depends on the tonic accent. In 5/4 time, there’s usually an emphasis on the first two or three quarter notes. The groupings can be: 3 + 2; 2 + 3; or even 2 + 2 + 1. On the other hand, a grouping of five eighth notes creates a sort of hemiola of two 5/8 measures within a 5/4 measure, which is interesting, but as @alessandroponti so aptly puts it, seeing the whole piece would help to determine the most appropriate notation.
This bold declamation is ultimately untenable.
Dividing the metrical-level pulse (i.e., the measure) evenly is actually quite straightforward, as @Rene_L points out. This is the 5/4 equivalent to two groups of four beamed eights in 4/4. (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were beaming like this in Bartók’s Mikrokosmos, which would making it — literally — child’s play.)
In actual practice there are myriad examples of composers “pushing against” the default metrical hierarchy in their notation. (And this doesn’t even account for the rhythmic notation of musics not conceived in the Western metrical-hierarchical practice.)
I suppose you might really take umbrage at this Etude of Scriabin from 1903, in which the beaming really pushes against the nominal 2/4 meter, especially given the quintuplets:
Ultimately systems of notation are in place to make the communication and performance of musical ideas possible, but it would be a true shame if we allowed the human musical imagination to be tightly constrained by what the chosen system makes “easy” to notate.
Yes. And Dorico does allow anyone to produce these misplaced tuplets, albeit with a few manual interventions (which I think is a perfectly reasonable price to pay for the ability to do so).
Couldn’t agree more!
Overall, I completely agree with you. The example given above only corresponds to a single measure. A broader perspective would help determine what is most appropriate. However, this single measure could be simplified to two 5/8 measures if the first eighth note of each group is slightly accented.
The accent introduced by a rhythmic pattern generally helps clarify the rhythmic context. Two 5/8 measures followed by a 5/4 measure, or another time signature, is common practice, and this can be changed as needed, since the overall rhythmic pulse determines the necessary changes. Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring is a prime example of this.
