Turning a full bar into an upbeat bar

I have a full bar in 6/8 with a dotted quarter rest, a quarter rest and an 8th note. What’s the easiest way of removing the rests and turning this bar into an upbeat containing only the 8th note?

Click on second bar, add another 6/8. Doubke-click on first bar meter, change to 6/8, 1. (I think it’s “1”).

This?

Upstaged by the gif! :laughing:

Not to mention the fact that Dan’s option doesn’t quite work :wink:

Eh, you might need to add an additional bar or something, but that’s the basic idea. But your way’s definitely faster.

Ah, my mistake was that I wasn’t adding the upbeat on the 6th 8th of the bar, so all the notes after that were being offset. Thank you, Leo!

I must apologise. Both Dan and I forgot the functionality added to the Shift+B popover in Dorico 2.2.
This cuts a step out:

…added in 2.2. Yes, I’m still learning ways this function can be useful!

(corrected!)

You two are turning into a double act. You should make an agreement that each of you will only look at every other thread, or something.

That’s impressive! (also your duo act)

This would be workable if either of us was (were?) infallible, but neither of us is (are?).
That said, I should really get some work done this afternoon…

I’m still impressed by Dorico’s ‘intelligence’ (although it’s still learning). In this fairly large file I’ve often tried things out which have then caused massive rebeaming. In the software I’m used to using, this sort of thing can be catastrophic, even with the Undo function. Not with Dorico.

And you’re right, it is indeed ‘either was’ and ‘neither is’. Both are singular pronouns (like ‘none’ which is a contraction for ‘not one’) and should take the singular verb. It’s widely accepted now, but ‘none of us are infallible’ is actually incorrect. OK, pedantry aside, I’d better get some work done, too.

I love the double act and hope it doesn’t go away anytime soon.

Vaughan Schlepp, I incline toward pedantry myself, and in this instance the singular usage sounds right to me. But look around in usage guides – they seem to concur that the word has always, since Old English, been used either as a singular or plural, meaning either “not one” or “not any” as needed. Etymology can be a red herring sometimes.

“Either were” would be correct as the conditional situation contrary to fact allows the past subjunctive. :laughing:

(Now that is pedantry! I’ll call it on myself.)

True, but the grammar is easily overlooked because of the plural pronoun in between. The fact that that usage has been around for a long time doesn’t necessarily make it correct. It’s like the construction ‘John and me’ which is often taught to be an incorrect version of ‘John and I’, without teaching _when_it actually is correct. As a result, many people say ‘He gave the book to John and I’, thinking that they’re being correct, whereas they’d never say ‘He gave the book to I’. Oh well, I guess I’m procrastinating…

This is kind of fun. You’re right, it is subjunctive!