Re: Another tricky music situation. This time: Repeat Nightmare with alternative endings.

[James]

Hello,

On 5 April 2012 15:42, Nils <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:31:48 +0100
> schrieb James <address@hidden>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 5 April 2012 15:20, Nils <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > Hello list,
>> >
>> > Maybe you have an opinion about this musical situation, described
>> > here: http://www.nilsgey.de/2012/04/05/nightmare-repeats/
>> >
>> > In my eyes it should be forbidden. The real cause it that
>> > alternative endings use the same glyph as boundary as repeats: the
>> > repeat close barline. Better would be a glyph that is explicitely
>> > and only for the first/second ending bracket, but well.. we don't
>> > got that over the last few hundred years.
>>
>> better would be to write out in full, it's not like we need to worry
>> about the cost of parchment is it ;)
>>
>> Why muck about like this in the first place?
>>
>> James
>>
>
> I is somehow my (future) Job as music theorist to think about these
> problems. At least I want to think about it.
>
> Writing your music down in a correct way helps the intpreter to play
> better and the composer to think better.
>
> There are many strange and inconsequent things in music notation. If
> you know them you can avoid them and make your music or score clearer.
> This is where Lilypond comes in because I use it to create scores :)

Isn't this just the old adage, 'Just because we can, doesn't mean we
should'. I cannot think what problem this is solving. or how it is
adding to the music in any way at all.

Otherwise you simply add a note saying to go back to repeat X instead of Y.

I think your example is far too short to get the point across.

Maybe there could be some piece where you start at A got Z repeat back
to B got to Y repeat back to C and so on, in ever decreasing
'circles', that may be something a 'modern' composer might do. Or even
me come to think of it. :)

But then you'd just label your repeat bars.

regards

James