Select everything in those treble piano staves (by clicking inside the staff in the first bar, then shift-clicking inside the last bar), right click, Voices, change voice to Upstem Voice 1.
You may also want to reset the stem directions of any notes that have odd stem directions after changing their voice - bar 5 in your example looks like the stems may have been manually forced.
Thanks for the quick responses. Neither of those solved the proble. the notes that were the blue ‘UpStem Voice 1’ stay blue and the others pink.
I don’t think I’ve forced stem directions, and when I applied Reset stem directions on the whole selection, nothing seemed to change either.
Yes that’s what I did, unfortunately.
What should I do?
Your video doesn’t appear to be working, at least not for me.
It’s possible that the pink voice started off on the bottom staff. Try selecting the pink voice (select a note or chord then use Edit > Select More a couple of times) then type Alt-N. This is the shortcut for moving content to the staff above. If I’m right, typing Alt-N won’t make any apparent difference on screen, but if you then select the whole passage and follow Dan’s instructions again they should work.
I note that in the places where the pink and blue voice have simultaneous notes, the durations aren’t necessarily the same. You’ll probably want to fix that before merging the voices.
1 Like
Your red notes are upstem notes from the lower staff; thus, they are supposed to remain red when you ask for upstem voice 1. If what you want is a downstem voice in the top keyboard staff, you need to copy (or cut/paste) the appropriate notes from the lower to the upper staff.
You may have used N instead of ALT/OPT+N to move the notes originally. You had probably best cut them from the lower staff and paste special to put them into a downstem voice in your upper staff.
1 Like
Um. Other way round, Derrek - N cross staffs but Alt-N moves.
2 Likes
I was investigating this while you posted. Had no luck searching “move notes” in the PDF manual an d so had to open a file and play with it only to discover what you just pointed out.
Now corrected above. Thanks.
1 Like
Ah thanks so much guys, This was what was going on. I wasn’t aware that there was a difference between moving and crossing, which made this very confusing.
@Lillie_Harris , I figured you had it somewhere; but looking for the contrast between using ALT and not was not clear to me on the page you mentioned (which is the one I found). The word move could apply to moving only noteheads from one staff to another and could therefore apply to cross-staff beaming.
So I did not go on through all the links. The OP was not dealing with cross-beaming. SO I decided to just open Dorico and try it, before Leo spotted my potential error. But I was too late and got caught by Leo. 
Sorry, I really wasn’t meaning to show you up, only to keep the information clear and correct - and you absolutely did come to the same conclusion as me - and I’m often guilty of mistyping shortcuts (including one notable instance today).
Tone of voice on a forum is really difficult 
Leo, I was kidding. I always enjoy your posts and am taken aback by your memory, industry, and availability.
3 Likes
That’s a fair point, I’ve made a note. In the First Steps guide, as a way of hopefully explaining the logic behind certain key commands such that they become more memorable, I do draw the link more explicitly (at the end). Likewise for accidentals vs respelling.
1 Like
From following this forum, it is clear that the experienced musician often has problems understanding how to do things in Dorico. The solution in this casse and others is to forget what one has learned about a technical term, like Voices before encountering Dorico and to limit one’s understanding to the definitions in Dorico. Other specifically defined, and sometimes therefore counterintuitive, Dorico technical terms are Flow, Playing Techniques, Layout. Sometimes the definitions are a subset of what we learnt before Dorico and sometimes they exceed our previous understanding of the word. A good example is the tied note. When a non-Dorico user looks at three notes tied together, he or she sees three notes. that are performed as one; but Dorico defines this as one note whose length is the sum of all the tied parts. This is a valid way of redefining a musical term; but it has been a source of confusion for many new to Dorico who are unaware of it. (For instance, deleting the last of the tied notes deletes them all.) In understanding the Dorico concept of Voices it is also necessary to forget the ramifications of the concept undertood by most musicians outside of Dorico.
David
I don’t think expressing a single sounding note that happens to be notated using multiple notes of different values as a single tied note is in any way a “redefinition” of an existing musical concept. You even call this a “tied note” (singular), which underlines the fact that Dorico defines this in precisely the same way as music itself. I don’t think any difficulty in understanding this concept has anything to do with one’s musical experience or education, but rather in first being exposed to other software applications that map musical concepts onto software ones in a different way.
And stating that a term like “flow” means something different in Dorico than it does in the wider context of music is peculiar indeed: before we (I) coined it for use in Dorico I had never heard it in the context of music, which was one of the reasons why it was attractive to us, because we could define it freely without it carrying specific connotations of genre, period, idiom or length in the way that terms like “piece”, “movement”, “song”, “number”, etc. might.
Likewise, I don’t think Dorico’s definition of “playing technique” is in the least bit controversial. Indeed, we take great pains to use an established musical term if one fits, which in the case of playing techniques, it absolutely does, like a glove.
And perhaps it is the case that Dorico’s use of the word “voice” to mean a stream of notes, chords and rests belonging to a particular instrument that has a preferred stem direction isn’t quite the same as a dictionary definition of “voice” (it feels that it is the same as the use in a music theory term like “voice-leading”, if perhaps not the same as the use in the arranging term “voicing”), but it is used in precisely the same way in Dorico as in other music notation software – e.g. Sibelius (see page 273), MuseScore, LilyPond, StaffPad, etc. etc.
So, in summary, I think this notion that you are trying to perpetuate, David, that we actively try to redefine existing musical terms for our own purposes is one you’ve invented. I’m sorry that it continues to be a struggle for you to get to grips with all of Dorico’s concepts, and I’m not suggesting that this struggle is in any way due to a deficiency on your part, but I don’t think the root of it is that Dorico is redefining common musical terms in unexpected ways.
3 Likes
Which is totally true, and which is why the term “Partie” irks me so much in the German translation.
Presenting Dorico to my friends and colleagues, it would be much easier for me to explain what a “flow” is, than having to explain all the things “Partien” are not…
I know it’s too late for that, but nonetheless I’d love for the “flow” to be reinstated in the German version of the software and manual.
Germans ARE able to grasp simple English words after all these days, you know… 
Have great day,
Benji
Well, it’s usage is certainly not out of place. We speak of voices in fugues, for instance, which (at least in keyboard writing) always follow strict stem directions. It’s safe to say that some terms are used in multiple different ways (correctly) and their meaning is determined by context. Choral vs. fugal vs. stave voices all make perfect sense.
Also Finale, which originally used the term Voices before it bolted on the additional concept of “Layers”, to mean exactly the same thing.
If you think Dorico is confusing, try “2 Voices per Layer”.
1 Like