Can't delete time signature

For some unknown (to me at least) reason, Dorico has added a time signature in the middle of a section where there is no change in the time signature. I have tried repeatedly to delete this but it just keeps reappearing. This screws up the multi-rests in the parts that are not playing there by adding an extra measure at the inserted time signature. Any idea what has happened and what I need to do to eliminate this?

So, apparently I can cut it (cntrl-x) but not delete it (del.) which doesn’t make any sense to me. Any thoughts?

1 Like

Click on the barline preceding it and press Delete.


That is very interesting! Thanks for discovering that.

Sorry to revive an old topic, but I believe I’ve discovered the source of this issue. This score has been passed between me and the composer a few times and it’s absolutely riddled with them:

In a past version of the score, these were double barlines. I suggested to the composer to replace some of the double barlines with rehearsal marks instead, and I think he un-did them by using the Shift+B popover and manually forcing a single barline.

In any case - Dan’s solution works great, as does Bob’s. Thanks all. :blush:

Yes, I think ideally Dorico should be clever enough to know that when the user tries to create a “normal” barline in order to replace a “non-normal” barline at the same position, what it should really do is remove the special barline rather than create a special “normal” barline there (if you see what I mean!).

1 Like

Very interesting! Now that there is a function to split a multi-bar rest, is there any use for explicit single barlines any more?

Well, certainly they’re useful if you’re in open meter music and you want to create a barline at an arbitrary point.

Oh, of course! I didn’t realize that is what we call an “explicit” barline (as in the first button on the panel) because I’ve always created it with the popover.

Explicit barlines are accessible from Write mode (for creation and deletion, even!) so they’re much quicker to input, like a low-footprint rehearsal mark. For this reason I believe I tried to use the ‘split’ function exactly before deciding it wasn’t worth the hassle compared to shift-B, |, enter.

This is exactly the kind of situation that we might change in future, Hugo, i.e. make it such that if creating a “normal” barline would mean replacing a normal barline that would appear naturally as a result of the prevailing time signature, do nothing. Perhaps we wouldn’t need to go all the way here, and could do what I described earlier, i.e. delete a “special” barline instead of creating an explicit normal barline on top of it, but still allow you to create an explicit normal barline at the position of an existing bar division if you really want to.

This answer somewhat confuses me as I was only answering Mark’s question about the use of explicit single barlines. The Split multi-bar rest function does roughly the same job, but in a more confusing and convoluted way: you have to create those signposts in Engrave mode, but have to then switch back to Write mode in order to copy/paste or delete them.

For efficiency’s sake therefore I tend to use explicit barlines for this purpose, slotting into the workflow right next to rehearsal marks, double barlines and other systemic markers. I know what the red signpost means, so I don’t run into the confusion described in Taran’s post. So my vote is for your second proposal—I would like to keep this ability.