Number of dots in repeats
A question for the reference gurus out there...
We all know that, with 5-line staves, the repeat signs have two dots, one above and one below the middle line.
Is there any standard / custom / tradition / ... for staves with more or less than 5 lines?
For an odd number of lines, the 5-line rule is easy to extend: 2 dots, one above and one below the middle line.
What about staves with an even number of lines (like most tablatures)? No middle line there!
The current MuseScore implementation uses 2 dots again, one in the space above and one in the space below the middle space. This leaves an empty space in the middle and looks strange to me.
While I have no ready references, I remember having seen 6-line tablatures with three dots: one above, one in and one below the middle space, which looks better to my old-fashioned eye.
Can this be generalized? Also for 4-line and 2-line staves (some TAB's and percussion, I think)?
Thanks for any comment,
M.
Comments
Interesting question. I think I implemented the current dot position. In my experience, two dots are used in modern books.
Here is an example for Ukulele (4strings): http://ukulelehunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rept12.gif
An example for 6 strings : http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/guitar-tablature-mozarts-motif.ht…
An the exeption to make the rule,
A very weird one for Lute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attaingnant--branle-de-poictou.png
In reply to Interesting question. I think by [DELETED] 5
Indeed, the last example you quote (and label as "very weird") looks 100% regular to me; in fact, it renders the original: up to well into the 17th c., repeats (and often even simple final double bar lines) had dots in each space, 4 for a regular 5-line stave and 5 for a 6-line tab stave.
(Now, I would be very pleased to be able to do that, but I understand it is very niche...)
OTOH, the first two examples do look weird to me. As a general remark, and as for other examples given in other occasions, all 3 seem to be outputs from some music notation program(s), as opposed to printed samples (better if from widely appreciated publishers). This may imply 2 different things:
1) Those programs follow an established practice and then it is wise to follow their example.
2) Those programs did whatever was simpler or looked 'less weird' without a complete knowledge of the tradition and/or of some special cases (as tabulatures often are) and the path they traced tend to stick; I do not think this would be an example to follow.
I cannot claim a throughout competence in this field, so I do not have a ready-made answer; whence my question.
Maybe I am the only one to bother and the whole issue is largely irrelevant; maybe it is a(n admittedly small but) relevant detail. Ant other comment?
Thanks!
M.
In reply to Everyone has his own perspective... by Miwarre
The issue is relevant !
I don't understand the difference between output from music notation software and printed materials, 99.9% of current printed materials has been output by a notation software :)
Here is another counter example : http://www.amazon.com/Ukulele-Song-Book-Notation-Tablature/dp/1574240722 (check page 13, in the look inside feature)
I will ask a ukulele teacher to give his opinion. Any 6 string bassist out there?
In reply to The issue is relevant ! I by [DELETED] 5
Could you not use Lilypond output as a guide??
In reply to The issue is relevant ! I by [DELETED] 5
interval 1/3 me semble plus lisible :))
In reply to Everyone has his own perspective... by Miwarre
@lasconic: you are right, I was too terse. Perhaps my main point was about reliability of source(s): I tend to rate a, say, Schott edition (or Durand's or Ricordi's for that matter) high in reliability: they have a long experience (Schott is there since three centuries...), they have/had a standard to keep, knowledge and so on.
OTOH, an example made by we don't know whom, with we don't know which program or for which goal might be perfectly right or not: we don't know.
(In addition, for an edition dating from, say, forty or more years ago, when everything was done by pencilling on a lithographic stone (not to speak about etching a copper plate...) with great investment of time and resources, there were substantial incentives to get it 'right' since the beginning; less so for computer-aided musical notation.)
@ChurchOrganist: good idea about Lilypond. I perused its on-line documentation, but all the examples I found for repeats are on 5-line staves. Anyone can try 'live'?
Thanks!
M.
In reply to @lasconic: you are right, I by Miwarre
Facsimile of Dowland's "Orlando Sleepeth" manuscript: 3 dots both sides of first repeat, 2 dots, middle space and space above on the other two repeats.
Oldest publlshed guitar tab I have, Ivor Mairants "The Flamenco Guitar", Latin-American Music Publishing Co. (c) 1958, 2 dots, middle and above.
1972, Mel Bay, 2 dots, middle and above.
1973, Wise, 4 string bass, 2 dots, first occurrence, middle and bottom, all others, top and bottom!!
1976, Music New Services, 2 dots, middle and above.
1978, Amsco, 2 dots, spaces 2 and 4
1978, Amsco, 4 string bass, 2 dots, middle and top.
1982, Wise, 2 dots, middle and above.
1989, Hal Leonard, 2 dots, middle and above.
1993, Wise, 2 dots, spaces 2 and 4!!! and 4 string bass tab, top and bottom spaces only.
1994, WB, 4 string bass, 2 dots, middle and top.
1995, Mel Bay, 2 dots, middle and below!!!
1999, WB/IMP (the nearest I could find to a quality publisher), 2 dots, middle and above.
No date but I know it's a new pubication, Hal Leonard, 2 dots, spaces 2 and 4!!!
So, the consensus, 2 dots, middle and above for guitar, equal split for bass (small sample though). Also, same publisher, different styles, (even in the same book).
My preference is for symmetry. 1 and 3 for 4 string and 2 and 4 for 6 string.
On the other hand, I have seen (rarely) in conventional notation, a dot in every space. There are conventions but there is also House Style. I think you should choose what you (we) like best. The important thing is does it convey the structure clearly?
Myer
In reply to A brief survey by Myer
Myer, THANKS for the extensive survey!
So, there seems to be a prevalent consensus on:
*) odd number of lines: 2 dots, one above and one below the middle line (no dispute on this!)
*) even number of lines: also 2 dots, one above and one below the middle space
Which is exactly what MuseScore current implementation does; it seems I stirred much ado for nothing....
So, we can leave everything as it is; additional repeat configurability can be added later, if the need arises.
Thanks to everybody and apologies for the mess...
M.
In reply to Myer, THANKS for the by Miwarre
Don't apologize, it was a very good discussion and we have now some good examples to back our choice!
In reply to Don't apologize, it was a by [DELETED] 5
;-)