I do see the notation (1,3) in choral music. Not often, and maybe it's dependent on the publishing house. While it's reasonably clear, for the environment of a church choir setting, where sight-reading can unfortunately become the norm, I find this confusing. I once had to read through an arrangement that used every single type of repeat you could think of in the same piece, with overlapping repeat sections (!!!). It was clearly an amateur "engraving" and not a publishing house engraving, but it was incredibly difficult to figure out. Every rehearsal we spent at least five to ten minutes going over the "road map" - total waste of time. I finally got fed up and re-engraved it as a straight-through piece, with no repeats. It's amazing what you can do with cut and paste these days. :-)
---- Noel Stoutenburg <[email protected]> wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > > Maybe it's my early music background, but for one particular > > situation, I see no issue with it, and that's an ABA where the 2nd > > ending starts the B section, and 1st ending is the FINE for the > > repeat of the A section. I just don't see how that's confusing at > > all. Then again, it's a very familiar roadmap for music before 1800. > > I must admit that this was my first reaction as well, but upon further > reflection I realized that I have seldom, if ever, seen ending signs and > brackets used in this idiom. More commonly I have seen the first A > section, and the B section written out in full, with no repeat brackets, > but with a DC or DS at the end of the B section, and the end of the > composition after the reprise of the A section indicated by either a > fermata, or the word "fine". > > ns > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
