Clearly there are historic and formal reasons for the continued use of some repeats. And page turns can also be a consideration. But the original post was about a double coda. My comment was especially about complicated and non-standard patterns as well as a general statement that we should carefully consider the use of repeats in the light of modern software.
Richard Smith On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:06:33 -0400, "David W. Fenton" <lists.fin...@dfenton.com> wrote: > On 14 Apr 2011 at 20:52, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: > >> Please consider just writng in out. Repeat pattens, especially >> complicated and nested types, are a holdover from the days when >> everything had to be copied out by hand. Copy and paste routines of >> modern notation software have pretty much eliminated the need for >> repeats. Your musicians will probably be grateful to play straight >> through rather than have to keep track of a complicated "road map". >> Sure they can do it and, if they're good, the performance will not be >> weak "at the seams". Why not just let them concentrate on making >> really good music rather than finding their way. > > Whenever this subject comes up, I always chime in to point out that > repeats also serve an analytical purpose -- they tell the player > "this is not new music -- it's EXACTLY the same thing you played > before". When you write it out, you're hiding that fact. > > I'm certainly not calling for complicated repeats, but I certainly > think that they have a place, particularly in familiar forms, and > when they don't require page turns back. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
