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 doesnât make any sense to me. Any thoughts?
1 Like
Click on the barline preceding it and press Delete.
3 Likes
That is very interesting! Thanks for discovering that.
Sorry to revive an old topic, but I believe Iâve discovered the source of this issue. This score has been passed between me and the composer a few times and itâs 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 - Danâs solution works great, as does Bobâs. Thanks all. 
Yes, I think ideally Dorico should be clever enough to know that when the user tries to create a ânormalâ barline in order to replace a ânon-normalâ barline at the same position, what it should really do is remove the special barline rather than create a special ânormalâ 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 theyâre useful if youâre in open meter music and you want to create a barline at an arbitrary point.
Oh, of course! I didnât realize that is what we call an âexplicitâ barline (as in the first button on the panel) because Iâve always created it with the popover.
Explicit barlines are accessible from Write mode (for creation and deletion, even!) so theyâre much quicker to input, like a low-footprint rehearsal mark. For this reason I believe I tried to use the âsplitâ function exactly before deciding it wasnât 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 ânormalâ barline would mean replacing a normal barline that would appear naturally as a result of the prevailing time signature, do nothing. Perhaps we wouldnât need to go all the way here, and could do what I described earlier, i.e. delete a âspecialâ 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 Markâs 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 efficiencyâs 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 donât run into the confusion described in Taranâs post. So my vote is for your second proposalâI would like to keep this ability.