hide cautionary clefs, keys and time signature

this seems quite odd, I’d at least like to keep movements in one flow. And like to decide myself, wether cautionary signs should be there, yes or no. May be even change my mind in between…


I agree with k_b on this issue – if I want to hide a cautionary clef, key or time signature I shouldn’t have to break the music into different flows. That interrupts the “flow” of my creativity when I’m trying to produce an elegantly printed musical work. I hope that someday we’ll be able to hide or show, in score or in any/all parts, whatever we would like to see or hide. That is one of the most helpful aspects about Sibelius – it makes it so easy to get just what I want on the printed page.


While I can see a few reasons to be able to hide cautionary clefs, time signatures, and key signatures. I also think that Dorico’s method is quite great. I think it will be easier, once you get the ability to break up a current flow into numerous other flows.

While we wait for that function… you could always got to town writing one long piece, and then when you are done simply copy and paste the “movements” into new flows into a new file. That method allows for your creative thought process not to be diminished, and then you can utilize the strengths of Dorico in not having to “trick” the program.

Just a thought.


One could easily make a template for an exercise book, with several flows per page of one or two lines each. Perhaps Dorico can supply one or more such templates in future.

If I want to reproduce an original score 1:1 I would not like my software to tell me, what would be a better solution.
A good exercise for typesetting is copying an old score, respecting the habits of that time.
Also the human brain does not work in a completely logical way, it is more subtle. Sometimes one needs cautionary signs, sometimes it might be better not to have them.


1 Like

I agree wholeheartedly! I made this point in the thread about the Goldberg variations aria as well as in the one about secondary beam breaks. While a lot of things can already be adjusted, there are still many things which cannot. The premise ‘we know what correct notation is (anno 2016)’ is very handy for a lot of notation but it can only go so far when we’re talking about several centuries of literature.

1 Like

I want to make a single page with all 15 major scales on it and I don’t want courtesy key signatures. Does this mean I have to have 15 flows? And then create 15 frames on the page? Is there an easy way to do this. Easier than creating the 15 scales in one flow?

I’m a little disappointed in Daniel’s earlier response. “Why would you want to do this?” The response to a user request for a feature should be “ticket added.” This reminds me of Sibelius in its early days. The manual would actually talk about the user wanting to do something “weird.” And the software made it hard to do the “weird” things.

Yes, you should use 15 flows, but you don’t have to create 15 frames, just allow new flows to start on the existing page. (Layout options>Page Setup>Flows… )

I also find it very strange that a new key signature without cautionary means a new flow-start. Are there any other restrictions concerning what one cannot do within a single flow?



That’s an awfully broad question, so the answer is almost certainly “yes,” but exactly what is more difficult to pin down. No doubt those of us who use the program find these limitations (undocumented features :unamused: ) as we attempt to do something that is not possible. In spite of the documentation available via web, PDF, and video, we are still very much in an experimental stage of learning what this evolving program can do.

That can be exciting and frustrating both, and as Walter Cronkite used to say, “That’s the way it is.”.

The ability to hide this kind of thing should be available on an ad hoc basis within a flow. Having to use a new flow for an incidental like this spoils the usefulness of flows as sections or movements.

Nice to see you, George. You shouldn’t interpret my question “why would you want to do this?” as anything other than a genuine attempt to understand the requirement. People have a tendency to ask for something by telling you what they imagine the solution to be, rather than what problem they’re actually having. A big part of my role as the product owner and designer of Dorico is to understand user requirements and try to synthesise them into a cohesive, logical, and useful whole. If the software has thousands of designers each expressing their own needs in their own way, then the software will not be cohesive or logical for very long. So when I ask “why would you want to do this?”, I am trying to understand the underlying requirement, not reacting to a request with disdain or dismissing it out of hand.


Good point Daniel! I’ll give an example.
I’ve been scoring a theatre show, with major numbers as cues. These are always to start a new page for all players and make sense to be flows. Within these are minor numbers (incidental music, reprises, play-offs etc.). A lot of these change key etc. and require cautionarys, but individual pieces don’t.
Conceptually, flows = major numbers and are numbered 1, 2, 3…
Minor numbers are then 1a, 4ee etc. and should be within the flows.

Now… if the flows could be recursive…

I guess, Steve, that your “minor numbers” could quite happily exist within the “major number” flow that precede them, and you can achieve the appearance you want by inserting e.g. a system break or something along those lines?

I suppose what I’m saying is that a “minor number” isn’t truly an independent bit of music since it sounds like it follows on directly from the “major number” and hence is connected to it in terms of key, meter, etc., but I do realise that this same issue also affects “attacca” transitions between movements in larger works as well.

I would put the incidental theater music/excerpts in separate flows since these things are constantly revised or moved as a production goes up. Then the individual flows (along with the major numbers or sections of numbers–as in Ragtime) could be moved around or recombined as needed.

But then, Derek, flows are becoming less useful for organisation.
Surely organisation is the point of the flows? I shouldn’t need to use them for ad hoc notational items.
Daniel, some are connected, some aren’t. A cautionary that shouldn’t be there is as bad as a missing one.

1 Like

Fair enough. I hope I explained why I want to do it. Dorico looks to be a potentially great product, particularly when trying to do things the others can’t. But please don’t make the easy stuff, hard.

Thanks. It’s a little difficult to wrap one’s head around, but it worked pretty well.

Just read this whole thread. Seems to me that part of the frustration with Dorico (and there is some) revolves around, first of all, identifying what the problem is, and then learning how to solve it. In many cases Dorico can already do what we need, but we don’t know how to make it do it!

I think that’s the case when getting used to any new product or service. Think of Dorico as the ultimate Swiss Army knife with several thousand attachments. Yes, that toothpick or blade or scissors is probably there somewhere, but finding it is a challenge.