Re: Section repeat
> On 4 Feb 2017, at 01:58, Flaming Hakama by Elaine > wrote: > > 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. > > The counterpoint to this insight is that with the combined ending, players > must read the same symbol (the end repeat barline) and interpret it > differently different times--the first time they encounter it (2nd ending), > take the repeat, and the second time they encounter it (4th ending), they > ignore it. > > Especially since there are more than 2 repeats, and this occurrence is > separated by a 3rd ending, you can introduce more work to the musicians to > remember where they are and what to do when they get to that measure. > > With the separate endings, there is less confusion about the roadmap. > > So, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach. It seems that the end repeat symbol is interpreted differently with and without alternatives: Without alternatives, it means repeat a number of times, and if it is not two, can be specified with a "x" at the beginning of the section. The end repeat symbol is then skipped over the last time. When there are alternatives, one expects it to mean to jump back to the begin repeat symbol. So then the last alternative should not have it. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
Yt was David Wright who wrote what you quote, not me. > On 4 Feb 2017, at 01:58, Flaming Hakama by Elaine > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:12 PM, [David Wright ] > wrote: > > > 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. > > The counterpoint to this insight is that with the combined ending, players > must read the same symbol (the end repeat barline) and interpret it > differently different times--the first time they encounter it (2nd ending), > take the repeat, and the second time they encounter it (4th ending), they > ignore it. > > Especially since there are more than 2 repeats, and this occurrence is > separated by a 3rd ending, you can introduce more work to the musicians to > remember where they are and what to do when they get to that measure. > > With the separate endings, there is less confusion about the roadmap. > > So, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Hans Åberg wrote: > > > 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. > The counterpoint to this insight is that with the combined ending, players must read the same symbol (the end repeat barline) and interpret it differently different times--the first time they encounter it (2nd ending), take the repeat, and the second time they encounter it (4th ending), they ignore it. Especially since there are more than 2 repeats, and this occurrence is separated by a 3rd ending, you can introduce more work to the musicians to remember where they are and what to do when they get to that measure. With the separate endings, there is less confusion about the roadmap. So, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach. 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
Re: Section repeat
> On 3 Feb 2017, at 21:51, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 03 Feb 2017 at 20:23:07 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote: >> >> 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. Indeed. I tried that first, but immediately went for something better. > 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. It is logically wrong, because the last note, even though the same, belongs to different sections. So I decided to keep them separate. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
On Fri 03 Feb 2017 at 20:23:07 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 3 Feb 2017, at 19:02, Flaming Hakama by Elaine > > 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. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
> > 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
Re: Section repeat
On Thu 02 Feb 2017 at 13:41:52 (-0800), Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote: > > When the whole section is repeated when it has alternatives, how is that > > normally engraved? Specifically, the section has two alternatives, but is > > repeated in full. One way is to use Score.repeatCommands for alternatives > > markup "1. 3" resp "2. 4", but then the "2." does not have a repeat. One > > can of course write four alternatives, but I was looking for something more > > compact. > > > > I'd say, in general, you need as many alternatives as there is unique > material. > > Only 1 & 3 are the same, so you can combine those. > 2 and 4 differ In what way? In the OP it said that the music was "repeated in full". Indeed, in the example, the same notes are present in 2 and 4, just as the OP promised. > 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? 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. > This means three alternatives: > 1 & 3 > 2 > 4 > > Which is to say, I agree with how you did it in the second half of your > example. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 22:41, Flaming Hakama by Elaine > wrote: > > I'd say, in general, you need as many alternatives as there is unique > material. > > Only 1 & 3 are the same, so you can combine those. > 2 and 4 differ in that 2 needs a repeat barline at the end of the measures, > you need one alternative each. > > This means three alternatives: > 1 & 3 > 2 > 4 > > Which is to say, I agree with how you did it in the second half of your > example. Indeed, combining 2 & 4 looked wrong. It is a curious example in that the music lines of these are exactly the same, including the binding note at the end. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 20:56, David Wright wrote: >> Yes, the idea was to just add "2x" to a repeat with two alternatives. How >> would that look, in your view? > > Isn't there a danger that the "2x" will be seem as merely a redundant > reinforcement of an ordinary repeat unless you mark the end of the > second alternative. It is ambiguous, indeed, in view of the alternatives. >> Otherwise, I used the "1, 3", "2", "4" variation, which looks fine. > > How good it looks might depend on the relative scale of the repeated > section and the alternatives. It is the second section here (cf. [1]). Normally, I would not bother write out exactly how many times a section is repeated, as it ad lib, and another requirement is that as the piece curiously exactly fills out one page, I did not want it to flow over. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB5V-SO8BdI ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
On Thu 02 Feb 2017 at 20:29:49 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 2 Feb 2017, at 19:35, Chris Yate wrote: > > >> > I'd write and expect to read numbered horizontal brackets for each > >> > alternative, and expect a repeat symbol at the end of any section that > >> > needed it. > >> > > >> > Of course you might put labelling like "1, 3", "2", "4" as required. > >> > >> Yes, that is one. Another might be to indicate that the whole section is > >> to be repeated by some mark at the beginning like "2x", or perhaps Dal > >> Segno marks. > > > > It depends how long the section is. D.S. marks are typically confusing for > > short sections. > > I felt so, too. > > > "3x" still requires the repeat bar lines > > Yes, the idea was to just add "2x" to a repeat with two alternatives. How > would that look, in your view? Isn't there a danger that the "2x" will be seem as merely a redundant reinforcement of an ordinary repeat unless you mark the end of the second alternative. > Otherwise, I used the "1, 3", "2", "4" variation, which looks fine. How good it looks might depend on the relative scale of the repeated section and the alternatives. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 19:35, Chris Yate wrote: >> > I'd write and expect to read numbered horizontal brackets for each >> > alternative, and expect a repeat symbol at the end of any section that >> > needed it. >> > >> > Of course you might put labelling like "1, 3", "2", "4" as required. >> >> Yes, that is one. Another might be to indicate that the whole section is to >> be repeated by some mark at the beginning like "2x", or perhaps Dal Segno >> marks. > > It depends how long the section is. D.S. marks are typically confusing for > short sections. I felt so, too. > "3x" still requires the repeat bar lines Yes, the idea was to just add "2x" to a repeat with two alternatives. How would that look, in your view? Otherwise, I used the "1, 3", "2", "4" variation, which looks fine. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
On 2 Feb 2017 5:00 p.m., "Hans Åberg" wrote: > On 2 Feb 2017, at 17:52, Chris Yate wrote: > > Did you mean, how to achieve it in Lilypond, or what is the best engraving practice? > > The latter. > > I'd write and expect to read numbered horizontal brackets for each alternative, and expect a repeat symbol at the end of any section that needed it. > > Of course you might put labelling like "1, 3", "2", "4" as required. Yes, that is one. Another might be to indicate that the whole section is to be repeated by some mark at the beginning like "2x", or perhaps Dal Segno marks. It depends how long the section is. D.S. marks are typically confusing for short sections. "3x" still requires the repeat bar lines ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 17:52, Chris Yate wrote: > > Did you mean, how to achieve it in Lilypond, or what is the best engraving > > practice? > > The latter. > > I'd write and expect to read numbered horizontal brackets for each > alternative, and expect a repeat symbol at the end of any section that needed > it. > > Of course you might put labelling like "1, 3", "2", "4" as required. Yes, that is one. Another might be to indicate that the whole section is to be repeated by some mark at the beginning like "2x", or perhaps Dal Segno marks. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
On 2 Feb 2017 16:49, "Hans Åberg" wrote: > On 2 Feb 2017, at 17:09, Chris Yate wrote: > > Did you mean, how to achieve it in Lilypond, or what is the best engraving practice? The latter. I'd write and expect to read numbered horizontal brackets for each alternative, and expect a repeat symbol at the end of any section that needed it. Of course you might put labelling like "1, 3", "2", "4" as required. Chris ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 17:09, Chris Yate wrote: > > Did you mean, how to achieve it in Lilypond, or what is the best engraving > practice? The latter. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Section repeat
Did you mean, how to achieve it in Lilypond, or what is the best engraving practice? On 2 Feb 2017 15:18, "Hans Åberg" wrote: > When the whole section is repeated when it has alternatives, how is that > normally engraved? Specifically, the section has two alternatives, but is > repeated in full. One way is to use Score.repeatCommands for alternatives > markup "1. 3" resp "2. 4", but then the "2." does not have a repeat. One > can of course write four alternatives, but I was looking for something more > compact. > > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Section repeat
When the whole section is repeated when it has alternatives, how is that normally engraved? Specifically, the section has two alternatives, but is repeated in full. One way is to use Score.repeatCommands for alternatives markup "1. 3" resp "2. 4", but then the "2." does not have a repeat. One can of course write four alternatives, but I was looking for something more compact. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
