[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:49:38 +0100 (CET) |
>> ________ ________ ________ ________
>> [1. ] [2. [1. ] [2.
>> | x x x x | x x x x | x x x x :||: x x x x | x x x x | x x x x :|| x x x
>> | x |
>> A B C D E F G
>>
>> The correct order of performance/reading should be:
>> A B C A B D E F D E G
>
> Honestly, I would just scrap the repeats alltogether and write it
> all out. As a person reading this, I would be very confused by what
> was meant.
I strongly disagree. This is standard notation since centuries; many
works by Mozart, Beethoven et al. use exactly this.
Werner
- Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Peter Budny, 2009/03/12
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, James E. Bailey, 2009/03/12
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/03/12
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/12
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Peter Budny, 2009/03/12
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, till Rettig, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Valentin Villenave, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Ian Hulin, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/13
- Re: Multiple repeat nested with alternative, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/03/17