> > 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. To me, the time and attention of the musicians reading the music is the most important resource, and so we should optimize scores for clarity. If adding the extra alternative doesn't bust your page turns, etc. then I think it is worth the extra measure. David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com self-immolation.info skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
