If I remember correctly, the only problem PMX has with midbar repeats (and
doublebars) is that they will not be copied properly into parts.
--Don Simons
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Werner Icking [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Repeat in mid-bar
>
> > From: Dirk Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:48:06 +0200 (SAST)
>
> > I was trying to typeset a piece that starts with an upbeat and has two
> > verses and a little coda. The upbeat to the coda is not the same as
> > to the verse. It seemed logical to put a repeat sign at the end of
> > the verse, one beat before the end of the measure. Saves me a volta.
> > PMX doesn't like the idea much. I can fool it with blind meter changes,
> > but ...
>
> Why to fool PMX. The follwing works perfectly:
>
> 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 0
> 1 1 20 0.00
>
> t
> .\
>
> c44 c c c c | c c c c | c c c Rr c /
> m3400 c c c /
>
> Or didn't I understand the example?
>
> > Question:
> >
> > Is it a reprehensible thing to try? I.e. does good typesetting style
> > require me to use voltas instead?
>
> Imho: It depends. The above example seems to me good typesetting style.
> I always was astonished that some publishers add "Rl" - a left repeat -
> at the very beginning; some do not.
>
> If the coda is longer, at least one line or more, then I would prefer
> to break the line at the repeat. But then too, no volta is neccessary:
>
> 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 0
> 1 1 20 0.00
>
> t
> .\
>
> c44 c c c c | c c c c | c c c Rr c | c c c c /
> m3400 c c c /
>
> Again: Or didn't I understand the example?
>
> -- Werner
