Re: Section repeat

[David Wright]

On Fri 03 Feb 2017 at 20:23:07 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Feb 2017, at 19:02, Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > in that 2 needs a repeat barline at the end of the measures,
> > > you need one alternative each.
> > 
> > Eh? Are you telling me that I can't write the first rendition
> > any more because, in the second, only 1 needs a repeat barline
> > at the end of the measure, and 2 *mustn't* have one?
> > 
> > 
> > I was suggesting what I thought was the clearest approach.
> > I didn't mean to imply that you could not combine them.
> >  
> > IOW what you seem to be saying is that writing ":|." at the
> > end of a measure means that under no circumstances should you
> > continue past that barline to the next measure—so my first
> > rendition generates an infinite loop.
> > 
> > I can see how you might infer that from my suggestion.
> > However, that it not my claim.
> > 
> > I agree that there is nothing musically wrong with combining 2 & 4 into one 
> > alternative. 
> > 
> > Mostly since this is not a super common repeat pattern, I expect that 
> > combining 2 & 4 into one alternative would raise some eyebrows and require 
> > some clarification in rehearsal, if this is a piece with multiple musicians.
> > 
> > Whereas separating them into two alternatives would make it obvious what 
> > the repeat structure is.
> 
> FYI, here are two versions with the repeat combined fro visual comarison. In 
> the first, there is a terminating repeat sign, in the second none.

Well, the second version (B) is just plain wrong, isn't it.

Comparing yesterday's version (2 and 4 separate) and A (2&4 together),
I'd maintain that A describes the music more faithfully, and is
actually easier to read: when you reach 15 on the 4th-time through,
you've not only played all the measures involved, but you only have
to vault over one volta bracket, not two.

Cheers,
David.