On 1 Jun 2004 at 20:26, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 01.06.2004 19:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote > > > It's clear to me that for the A section, there should be a repeat > > (leaving out the starting ||: is common well into the 19th century), > > but not so clear about the C section. I'd make my decision based on > > balance -- if the 3 sections are of comparable length, I'd say the > > repeat of the C section is obligatory. If it's, say, 2X as long as > > the other sections, then I'm not sure what to do. > > I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C is > not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a copying > mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if it makes no sense > without the C section repeat then this can be corrected, with a > footnote or similar.
The :||: is a copying error in your interpration -- you're just choosing between which indication you're calling an error. > But in 99% of all cases I have seen this simply means that C is not > supposed to be repeated. I don't see what evidence there is to support such a strong statement. You're assuming the copying error is in the :||: and not in the lack of an ending repeat. While that is certainly completely plausible, the actual resolution of the choice between the two interpretations of the error will depend on a number of issues, not least of which is the genre of the piece in question. In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such determination with any certainty. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
