The Sibelius Forum

Cool. Thanks.
What about this question?

What to press to change this timeslot selection to only note head selection?

It is the same as removing the blue rectangle, but leaving the items in it blue.

[ctrl/cmd][alt/opt][shift]1 will select all the note heads. (Use the top row of the main keyboard, not the leypad).

Thanks.
Interesting: does Sibelius support such 2 time signatures grouping?

You'll have to rephrase that. I don't understand exactly what you are asking. The image is as close as I could get, given that I'm not looking at a full bar in your example.

The only difference is in this beam, which should be removed.

So the question is about this.

No - because musically it makes no sense. You can't join just by a secondary beam. Only by a primary beam - which is the TOP one.

I thought as much. It was unlikely that it is supported.
It means 2 time signatures: in this case, 2/4 and 6/8.

because musically it makes no sense

Look:

The music comes in 2 grouping variants.

As a non-pianist I wouldn't even know how to approach such a thing. How can you make a single line of notes feel as if it is in two times at the same time? The beaming is - it seems to me - defeated by the fingering which places the stresses (1) in the normal 4/4 time sig places. I assume this is an early-ish 20th Century piece? They became a bit obsessive about impossibly tiny and inconsequential differences!

I assume this is an early-ish 20th Century piece?

Yes.
2 time signatures are used because musically - grouping changes between 4/4 and 12/8 or 6/4 (my vision).
An example of 12/8 (left hand definitely musically goes in 6/4 because of repeats):

How can you make a single line of notes feel as if it is in two times at the same time?

You should analyze (it is easy) what time signature match the music in a measure.

Yes, so the LH of the bar above is in 6/4 with the sqs divided into 6 groups of 4. No need for the confusing beaming. If you want them played as groups of 6, still easy (though in this case the RH lines would still say (6+6)/8 to me.) I suppose it's a matter of personal taste.

No need for the confusing beaming.

Here - yes, but in the first example (and similar cases), 4/4 is necessary. The idea was to keep the beaming in 1 kind instead of frequent changing it.