If you are going to write out the repeat sign so that each individual bar is
visible, I would suggest also numbering the bars every so often and
personally, I would appreciate it if somewhere it told me exactly how many
bars were repeated - I usually pencil that on myself when faced with such
On Sun, June 6, 2010 9:49 pm, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
If you literally mean counting to 60, I disagree, preferring instead to
count to 12 five times, or 15 four times. In my experience, large counts
are more likely lead to miscounting than repeating smaller ones.
This topic is interesting to
Dennis,
If this is something like Monteverdi's Zefiro Torna I think I would
write out the part and include above it a reduced staff with
continuous cues.
Hal Owen
I have a ciaconna bass of two measures that is repeated over 60
times. What would be the proper way to abbreviate this in a
On 6 Jun 2010 at 20:16, dc wrote:
I have a ciaconna bass of two measures that is repeated over 60 times.
What would be the proper way to abbreviate this in a separate part
using the .//. sign? Does each repetition have to appear and be
numbered, or this there a way of only having the
At 8:16 PM +0200 6/6/10, dc wrote:
I have a ciaconna bass of two measures that is repeated over 60
times. What would be the proper way to abbreviate this in a separate
part using the .//. sign? Does each repetition have to appear and be
numbered, or this there a way of only having the
On Sun Jun 6, at SundayJun 6 2:16 PM, dc wrote:
I have a ciaconna bass of two measures that is repeated over 60
times. What would be the proper way to abbreviate this in a
separate part using the .//. sign? Does each repetition have to
appear and be numbered, or this there a way of only
dc wrote:
I know Ted Ross says this is used very seldom in published music, and
I wrote out the whole part myself. But this is a suggestion I've been
asked to follow...
If the one making the suggestion is the one who is going to be realizing
the part, I'd ask him or her exactly what they
At 2:35 PM -0500 6/6/10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
dc wrote:
I know Ted Ross says this is used very seldom in published music, and
I wrote out the whole part myself. But this is a suggestion I've been
asked to follow...
If the one making the suggestion is the one who is going to be
realizing
At 3:43 PM -0400 6/6/10, Christopher Smith wrote:
I run into this kind of thing all the time in my music. It is very
common in jazz, for example, in drum and percussion parts.
You can write the pattern once, then as many .//. signs as will fit
onto the system, then restate the pattern at
On Sun Jun 6, at SundayJun 6 4:42 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 3:43 PM -0400 6/6/10, Christopher Smith wrote:
I run into this kind of thing all the time in my music. It is very
common in jazz, for example, in drum and percussion parts.
You can write the pattern once, then as many .//. signs
On 6 Jun 2010 at 16:31, John Howell wrote:
At 2:35 PM -0500 6/6/10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
dc wrote:
I know Ted Ross says this is used very seldom in published music,
and I wrote out the whole part myself. But this is a suggestion I've
been asked to follow...
If the one making the
At 4:53 PM -0400 6/6/10, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Sun Jun 6, at SundayJun 6 4:42 PM, John Howell wrote:
Actually I can't find that in Roemer, at least not in Chapter 6.
Look in Chapter 15. He says to rewrite the pattern on each new
system, so the eye doesn't have to jump back a line.
On Sun Jun 6, at SundayJun 6 6:31 PM, John Howell wrote:
I much prefer to have a complete phrase, between two structural
rehearsal letters, on a line, if it fits without crowding. I've
long done that with drum parts, giving instructions like Play 24
bars same, which in a way speaks to
dc wrote:
I think it's much easier to count to 60 than to try to follow the same
pattern line after line over more than one page.
If you literally mean counting to 60, I disagree, preferring instead to
count to 12 five times, or 15 four times. In my experience, large counts
are more likely
14 matches
Mail list logo
