In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes >Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003 > > >> I did not say "beginning of a piece" I said "beginning of a section". It >> has always been standard notation to assume the first repeat is from the >> beginning of the work. We are talking about >> >> .... | ..... | .... | .... :| >> .... | ..... | .... | .... :| >> >> which is ambiguous. And should maybe be >> >> .... | ..... | .... | .... :| >> |:.. | ..... | .... | .... :| >> > >In British traditional music as notated for at least the past half century, this >form is not >ambiguous but rather normal notation for 4 bars repeated followed by 4 bars >repeated. I can see that this has limitations, but it presents a simple, elegant >and >traditional notation, and I am loathe to move away from this as it would make >old >manuscripts and publications less comprehensible. I know that other cultures >have >different conventions in this area, and I think that both forms should be >admissable. > >Music notation is based on convention, and happily there is no absolute way of >notating music, thus allowing development of interpretation.
Very true. However your notation must be unambiguous or contain a footnote to say what is going on. Give the above to a pianist to vamp and he will stop at the end with a puzzled look. And all for want of a simple |: ? Is it worth adding to confusion? Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
