RE: 3x repeats

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Mr. Kastrup,

Please help me with my understanding of this issue.
Why is
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/short-repeats
not an acceptable solution?

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
David Kastrup
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 12:07 PM
To: Urs Liska
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: 3x repeats

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 23.12.2013 19:06, schrieb Xavier Noria:
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Am 22.12.2013 05:54, schrieb Alex Loomis:
>>>
>>>   In many contexts it's preferable to write it out instead of using 
>>> percent
>>>> repeats. If it's a long passage then it's frequently written pretty 
>>>> much like you had it except with the x3 at the repeat sign.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'd second this.
>>> But from numerous experiences (from the performer's POV) I can tell 
>>> you that you somehow have to make clear if you want the passage to 
>>> be _played_ or _repeated_ three times. This is usually unclear and 
>>> leads to useless discussions in an ensemble unless the composer has 
>>> explicitly stated his intention (which probably has to be written out in
a sentence).
>>
>>
>> Interesting, what is the difference?
>>
>
> That's what I'm talking about: Many people (composers) don't see the 
> issue. They take one of them for granted and aren't aware of the 
> existence of an alternative reading.
>
> If you repeat something _once_ you play it _twice_.
> And if you repeat three times you play four times.
>
> But often "repeate three times" is used in the sense of "play three
times".

Well, put [3×] over the _starting_ repeat sign, and you should be good.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user