Re: 3x repeats

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 23.12.2013 19:06, schrieb Xavier Noria:
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Am 22.12.2013 05:54, schrieb Alex Loomis:
>>>
>>>   In many contexts it's preferable to write it out instead of using percent
>>>> repeats. If it's a long passage then it's frequently written pretty much
>>>> like you had it except with the x3 at the repeat sign.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'd second this.
>>> But from numerous experiences (from the performer's POV) I can tell you
>>> that you somehow have to make clear if you want the passage to be _played_
>>> or _repeated_ three times. This is usually unclear and leads to useless
>>> discussions in an ensemble unless the composer has explicitly stated his
>>> intention (which probably has to be written out in a sentence).
>>
>>
>> Interesting, what is the difference?
>>
>
> That's what I'm talking about: Many people (composers) don't see the
> issue. They take one of them for granted and aren't aware of the
> existence of an alternative reading.
>
> If you repeat something _once_ you play it _twice_.
> And if you repeat three times you play four times.
>
> But often "repeate three times" is used in the sense of "play three times".

Well, put [3×] over the _starting_ repeat sign, and you should be good.

-- 
David Kastrup