Is it really the case that enharmonic changes don't carry over from the score to the parts?

I just sent out a bunch of music and then realized that the score and parts didn’t agree. I can’t for the life of me imagine why if I say something is a D# instead of an Eb in the score that I wouldn’t want it the same way in the part (or vice-versa) so am curious why this is the case? I know we’ve also talked about similar issues with changes made in Engraving Mode properties not carrying over which I know you’re working on but this one actually surprised me (unless, of course, there’s some setting I’m not aware of, etc., but even then I don’t know why the default wouldn’t be to automatically make sure they’re in agreement?)
Thanks for any thoughts and best -

  • D.D.

This is the case and has been from the beginning. Some of the original thoughts were if you had the score non-Transposing, and you did a bunch of enharmonic changes, would you really want that to carry over to the part? Knowing that in some circumstances that might produce double sharps/flats.

The team is very aware of the ‘pain’ this might cause some users, and is working diligently to figure out a best all around solution. But for now, it is what it is.

I know this doesn’t help you in your situation, but this was the logic that was applied from the start. Hopefully a fix will come soon.


If you respell a note in the full score layout, that spelling change is carried through to the part layout, but the reverse is not true: if you change the enharmonic spelling of a note in a part layout, it is not carried back to the score.

Sorry Daniel. I stand corrected. I wasn’t aware that this had happened.


Robby, it’s not something that has happened. It’s the way it’s been from day one!

Then I really must be confusing it with something else.


Then I must have initially changed the spellings in the part. Hopefully you’re working on a way to overall make clearer when an alteration does or does not carry over from the score to the part or vice versa (including Engraving Mode property panels stuff). Without knowing this, it can cause extra anxiety about whether what you’re seeing in one is what you’re getting in the other, and with large pieces you don’t always have a chance to catch every last difference. For what it’s worth, I was pretty partial to the color-based system you used in Sibelius, which made it crystal clear if anything was different (spacing or otherwise) the instant the change was made (whether it originated in the score or the part).
Cheers -

Possibly accidentals? Hiding/Showing/Parenthesising in the Score doesn’t seem to affect the Parts, from what I can tell.

Also strange to me, if so. I don’t want to be scrutinizing every part, trying to remember whether a change originated in the score or part and - if so - what the effect of this is depending on the individual item changed (in terms of whether it’s
“carried over”). Any discrepancies should ideally be made crystal clear, visually, by the software (my two cents).
Best -

I have just fallen foul of this is a horrible way. I entered everything using MIDI keyboard then respelled material in the part, not realising the “feature” described in the OP. Result: errors in the full score.

Please, please, please put this high on the agenda. I quite understand the issue for transposing instruments but, if sometimes you have to implement the 80:20 rule, then surely there are more occasions when you want respellings propagated from part to score than not.

Perhaps an option for “Propagate properties”, even if respelling is not exactly a property in the Dorico definition. With the recent improvements in part to score and vice versa, this must be an anomaly now…