2-Sided Repeat Sign
So, I'm trying to make a string quartet piece, and I was looking to put in a 2-sided repeat sign (I forget the technical term for it, but it has the dots on both sides) because I'd rather not have to use multiple endings if possible. I could've sworn that there used to be that symbol in the repeats section before, but I can't find it anywhere in the palettes, and I the system won't let me put a forward-facing and backward-facing repeat sign onto the same measure. Below is a picture of some old sheet music for Rondo Alla Turca, which shows the kind of repeat I'm talking about.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 20190316_215549.jpg | 2.42 MB |
Comments
They took it out. You have to use both of the single repeats to make it look the same.
In reply to They took it out. You have… by mike320
Ah, that's lame. Well, I hope they put it back in a later update.
In reply to Ah, that's lame. Well, I… by Nitrorex517
me too
In reply to Ah, that's lame. Well, I… by Nitrorex517
And if it's in the middle of a bar (measure), then you have to split the bar first.
In reply to And if it's in the middle of… by jandtgeen1
That is always the case to have a repeat barline work properly. If you want the measure to be able to be split between systems you also have to split the measure.
You can split the measure by pressing ctrl while you drag a barline, but it seems the display of the barline is always a single line. This sounds like a bug. It should enter the barline you are ctrl+dragging.
In reply to Ah, that's lame. Well, I… by Nitrorex517
To be clear - it was never a real symbol to begin with, it' was always faked by automatically adding the end and start separately. You can see this most obviously if you tried adding this at the end of a system - you didn't really get (or want) the two-sided repeat. So I have mixed feelings about adding it back; I don't really like "fake" palette elements. But I recognize that people do seem to be confused by its omission.
In reply to To be clear - it was never a… by Marc Sabatella
Well, in that case, do you think you might ever consider putting a "real" one in?
In reply to Well, in that case, do you… by Nitrorex517
That doesn't exist. Consider adding a system break, then this 'fake' combined end/start repeats splits into 2, a single combined one would not
In reply to That doesn't exist. Consider… by Jojo-Schmitz
Exactly. As much as it may look like a single symbol when it happens to appear in the middle of a system, it just isn't and cannot be if you want it to behave correctly at end. It would always have to be fake. Not saying we'll never consider adding a fake one back, but it would still just be a way of faking the real thing, and you can already do the re thing directly today with no faking required.
In reply to That doesn't exist. Consider… by Jojo-Schmitz
I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean by saying it doesn't exist. As far as I know, doesn't that symbol exist frequently in musical literature? I have a book of old piano sheet music which uses it frequently.
In reply to I'm sorry, but I don't see… by Nitrorex517
It pretends to exist. If you add an end-repeat to measure N and a start repeat to meaxure N+1 it looks like a start/end repeat. Unless there's a system break at measure N...
In reply to I'm sorry, but I don't see… by Nitrorex517
In other words, yes, it is common to see two back to back repeat signs. But that is what it is - two back to back signs, not a single two-sided sign. If it were a single two-sided sign, you would also see it used at the end of a system, but you don't.
In reply to To be clear - it was never a… by Marc Sabatella
"Real" or "Fake" ... to whom?
For the end user, it (intuitively) worked, which is why people now miss it.
Had the end/start repeat never existed (and we always had to add It as currently), I'd have made a feature request for this 'shortcut' way to notate it.
Regards.
In reply to "Real" or "Fake" ... to whom… by Jm6stringer
Exactly the essence of my thinking too!
In reply to "Real" or "Fake" ... to whom… by Jm6stringer
Sure, no one denies it's a nice convenience. Just trying to explain for the benefit of those who were understanding that adding the symbols separately really is the same thing, it's not some obscure workaround that may or not produce the right effect. It does exactly the same as the old shortcut used to.
In reply to Sure, no one denies it's a… by Marc Sabatella
Sure, no one denies it's a nice convenience.
So why eliminate it in the new version?
Adding notes to a blank staff is a nice convenience, too (as I discovered when I stopped solely printing blank manuscript paper).
Regards.
In reply to Sure, no one denies it's a… by Jm6stringer
Sarcasm aside, the reasons to eliminate a function that works differently from virtually everything else in the rest of the program is to simplify the code and thus make it easier to maintain, less error-prone, and easier to add new features to like the possibility of keyboard shortcuts for palette elements (tougher to do if we have to special case each palette cell). Not saying those concerns outweigh the concern over the extra two seconds it takes to add the correct symbols from the palette currently, but you do need to look at the big picture.
In reply to Sarcasm aside, the reasons… by Marc Sabatella
Got it... programming decision.
So 'fake' or 'real' to the source code.
Regards.
In reply to Got it... programming… by Jm6stringer
No, "programming decision" explains why the fake one was removed. The fake/real explanation is what we have said over and over - consider what happens if there is a line break there. You don't get, or want, the dots on the right at the end of the system or the dots on the left at the start.
In reply to No, "programming decision"… by Marc Sabatella
But wait... there's more!
"...programming decision" explains why the fake one was removed.
Got it... programming decision.
'Fake' (start/end barline) - to the source code - was removed for ease of maintenance, less error-prone, etc.
'Real' ones (start barline, end barline) were left intact.
For users like myself, and for many years, all those barlines were 'real' (in an existential sense) and they all worked just fine, even with line breaks.
Regards.
P.S.... I know
![start-end barline.png]( "start-end barline.png")
Can't use a 'real' start/end barline (as a distinct element) because of, for example, the possibility of line breaks occurring upon score layout/re-layout:
Regards.
In reply to Sure, no one denies it's a… by Marc Sabatella
The
In reply to Sure, no one denies it's a… by Marc Sabatella
Marc, the only way you can validly make that statement is if it doesn't cause the end user more work. As far as I can see the absence of this capability is causing a huge amount of work. I cannot see how to get back the ability to insert a mid-bar begin-end repeat as effortlessly as was the case with ms 2.1.
In reply to Marc, the only way you can… by richardm999
How is needing to double-clicking the palette twice to add the two symbols instead of just once "huge amount of work?". I think you must be missing something. The process is virtually identical to 2.3.2 and incredibly simple: first split the bar then add the repeats. The only difference is now you add the repeats using two clicks instead of one. Either way it takes around three seconds total.
In reply to How is nieedig to double… by Marc Sabatella
But you have to take into account the style of music. A user whose practice was essentially folk music had pointed it out precisely here in a commentary - I can't find it: these use cases are very frequent in these styles, traditional, folk and early music too (dances, all this is connected somewhere). And so, when it comes to doing it once or twice, from time to time, of course, it's not a big deal. But when it is related to a style, when it is repetitive (say four-five times in a score, and so on for each new score), the feeling can be to feel a kind of regression compared to 2.3.2, of extra work to do. We must hear this complaint.
In reply to You have to take into… by cadiz1
Spot on. Not only in transcribed books, but built in to the dance and calling style itself. I used to play at these dances. "One time forward, promenade; back to the top and do it again; twice this time with the one you brought, and back to the middle with the pretty little girl....
In reply to You have to take into… by cadiz1
Sure, this one extra click can be seen as a regression, and there is a pending PR to add the repeats back. But meanwhile, it is still important to help users understand how to effectively MuseScore as it is. Somehow people are getting the idea that the process has become much more complicated when it literally just one more click. It's useful to show them how simple it is actually is, so they don't persist in using complicated workarounds when the solution is actually so simple.
In reply to How is nieedig to double… by Marc Sabatella
I was thinking about this -- and here I'm not talking about "mid bar" repeats.
To continue...
Most palette items can be applied using 'select score element' and then double click on the palette icon to apply to the selected score item. (An excellent convenience)
So... one used to be able to select a barline, then double click on the end-start repeat barline. Perfect!
Nowadays, if one selects a barline and double clicks on an end repeat barline and then selects the end barline and double clicks on the start repeat barline, it replaces the end repeat barline. In other words, it's not additive. OK.
So it's more than two clicks instead of one.
Today... 2 measures must be selected:
1. Select measure N, place end repeat barline. (2 clicks)
2. Select measure N+1, place start repeat barline. (2 clicks)
(Not to mention the mouse movements to select each measure.)
Regards.
In reply to Aha! I was waiting for this … by Jm6stringer
I agree double-click of an end-repeat with start-repeat (and vice versa) selected should be "additive" as you describe. Feel free to file a formal Suggestion for this to the issue tracker.
In reply to How is nieedig to double… by Marc Sabatella
To do this correctly I do the following:
lets say I have a 4/4 bar which needs a double repeat and key change after beat 3
1) duplicate the bar
2) alter the first bar to be actual 3/4 (nominal 4/4)
3) alter the second bar to be actual 1/4 (nominal 4/4)
4) set end repeat in the 1st bad
5) set end repeat in the second bar
6) change of add to bar number value for the second bar to -1
7) apply the key signature change to the 2nd bar.
8) select all bar lines in the score and make them span to next stave.
9) repeat 4) 5) and 6) for each part.
Now enter the notes. If you'd already done that then a few more steps are required. You end up with the right look and the repeats work on playback.
In reply to To do this correctly I do… by richardm999
steps 1-3 are only needed of parts have been ceated already, otherwise just select the note you want to be the first in the 2nd measure and split the measure there, Tools > Measure > Split measure before selected note. Or us Ctrl+drag/doubleclick a barline ofrom ther palette (it splits the measure, but applies as a plain barline regardless which you picked, yet another bug)
step 6 should rather be "Exclude from measure count"
steps 7-8 is not needed at all (unless you really want a key sig change mid measure)
step 9 is indeed currently needed due to a known bug where barlines don't propagate between score and parts
In reply to steps 1-3 are only needed of… by Jojo-Schmitz
you say that 7 an d8 are not needed, but every time I change a bar line that previously spanned the entire score system, I find the replacement doesn't scan the entire system, and quite often adjacent bars are affected. This may be a the result of importing my score from ms 2.1. It's not been an easy ride!
In reply to you say that 7 an d8 are not… by richardm999
If there is no key sig change before the split (and mid measure key sig changes are not supported anyhow), there should be none after. And the barline span shouldn be affected either, that is what steps 7 and 8 are about, right?
If the new measure now goes into the next system, reduce stretch
And you should have upgraded your 2.1 to 2.3.2 a long time ago...
And/or have applied that end/start repeat there already ;-)
In reply to To do this correctly I do… by richardm999
It seems you are misunderstanding the "split the measure" step. It's not a long process like you describe, it's a single command, just as it was in 2.3.2 - Split Measure Before Selected Note. In 2.3.2 it was in Edit / Measure, now it's in Tools / Measure, but in both versions you can assign it a shortcut if it's something you use a lot. So there is no "duplicate measue", no "alter first bar" no "alter second bar" - it's simply one click.
The change of the bar properties step is the same in 2.3.2 and 3.0, and is necessary only if you want the split bar to not count as two.
Everything after that I have no idea what you are talking about. There should be nothing special you need to do with barlines or with key signatures, nordo you need to repeat anything for multiple parts. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
The steps are literally:
1) split measure
2) add end repeat to first bar
3) add start repeat to next bar
4) optionally adjust measure number
Steps 1, 2, and 4 are identical to 2.3.2. The only new step is 3, and it's only new if the two bars happen to be on the same system after the split - this is exactly how it would also have been done in 2.3.2 if the two bars ended up on different systems.
Since this seems to be causing so much confusion, here it is in action. If this is something you do much, you would want to assign a shortcut to the "Split" command, and I'd also normally use double-click instead of drag for the palette.
BTW, as you can see, I did this after entering the notes. Splitting a measure can't be done otherwise, you won't have anything to split before.
This is precisely the same as 2.3.2, except for the one additional second I spent adding the start repeat. Again, I have no idea where you are getting all those extra steps from.
In reply to It seems you are… by Marc Sabatella
It is not that easy in a score with parts though. But here too not different from MuseScore 2
Also you may want the 2nd measure to get excluded from measure count, something that 'split measure' doesn't do for you (but maybe it should?)
In reply to It is not that easy in a… by Jojo-Schmitz
Indeed, split has to be done before generating parts - just as was the case in 2.3.2. And yes, you can optionally adjust measure numbers, just as in 2.3.2. None of that has changed, and none of that has anything to do with the process of adding the repeat itself, which is the main thing I wanted to demonstrate.
In reply to It seems you are… by Marc Sabatella
Those extra steps are there because ms doesn't support key changes in a split bar. So I get around that by not splitting the bar, instead I define two bars with fewer actual beats than the nominal value. Having done that I can set key signatures independently following the repeat sign. Make sense?
In reply to Those extra steps are there… by richardm999
Once you've split the bar as I showed, you can add a key change if you want. Precisely as was the case in 2.3.2 - the only thing that changed is the menu location of the "split" command. Of course MuseScore can't possibly know you want a key change, so it's not going to add one automatically. But if you want to add one, the process of adding it is unchanged from 2.3.2.
And in any case, nothing about key changes requires any of those other steps you mention about changing barline spans or repeat everything for each part. You need to do all of this before generating parts, just as in 2.x.
In reply to Once you've split the bar as… by Marc Sabatella
I'll see what happens when I start with a fresh score on ms 3. I'm coming from the position of having been recommended to move to ms3 because I stumbled on some but with ottava in 2.1. Since then I have had to fight quite hard to get my pre-exisitng score and parts to look right. This is why I am looking for ways to make ms3 do what I want. I was forced with the decision of discarding parts and go though all the manual editing again or make re-instate what got thrown away when the 2.1 score was imported. This makes be very nervous about importing any other scores into newer versions of ms. That's the background.
In reply to I'll see what happens when I… by richardm999
Good to know. Feel free to start a new thread discussing the problems you had on import, attaching the score in question and describing the problem in more detail. In general, it is indeed true that the tremendous improvements in the default layout mean that manual adjustments applied in 2.x - especially ones applied to work around deficiencies in its default layout will no longer make sense. That's why we provide a "reset" otpion that often does better than the manual adjustments you had applied originally. But sometimes the best answer is, just keep using 2.x for those specific scores.
In any case, back to the issue at hand, it really is as simple as what I described above and showed in the GIF - there really is nothing more to it than that. No duplicating measures, no adjusting durations, no adjusting barline spans, no repeat actions for multiple parts. Yes, if you want to adjsut the measure count, you need to do so after splitting the bar - exactly as in 2.x. Yes, if you also want to do the unrelated act of adding a key change, you can do so after splitting the bar - again exactly as in 2.x. Literally the only step that change din the process is the extra second it takes to add the start repeat. Everything else is completely unchanged.
In reply to Good to know. Feel free to… by Marc Sabatella
I just completed a score of Mozart's Rondo using Musescore 3.2.3 or whatever is current The two sided repeat is in the palette just like in the jpg score image at the very top of this thread. So a single bar line can be changed to a repeat ending and simultaneous repeat start for the next measure. This option does not show in the video on split measures where the double sided repeat was not in the palette. However I found that if I forced a line break at the measure where a repeat ended, I would start the next repeat at the second successive measure thus leaving an empty measure. I then deleted the empty measure and the new line started with a beginning repeat bar on the new measure. Otherwise I could not get a bar line to show after the clefs and key signatures.
In reply to I just completed a score of… by msokol
If you mean the video I posted above, indeed, that was made at a time when the element was not in the palette, it's been added since.
I am not understanding your concern about line breaks, however. Did you split the measure as shown in my video? If so, then it should work perfectly. If you add a line break to a split measure with a two-sided repeat, the first half of the measure will appear on one system with an end repeat, the second half will start on the next system with a start repeat. The key, again, is that you must split the measure - merely inserting a "graphical" barline won't do it (nor will the latter affect playback, nor will affect multiple staves correctly).
If you still have issues, please attach your score and describe the problem in more detail.
In reply to If you mean the video I… by Marc Sabatella
Maybe it was pilot error. I was entering following a printed score. I added a break to make the score appear similar to the printed version breaks. The last measure on a line was an end repeat. The next line showed a begin repeat on the next measure immediately after the key signature. However, my score did not have a bar line on the first new line measure. The first bar line to modify was the next measure so I added a begin repeat and deleted the intermediate measure. I did not realize that I could have added a double sided repeat on the upper line and it would have automatically split the repeats due to the break at that point. I did not split measures. Just added the repeats as noted and the repeats playback perfectly. If I inserted a double sided repeat in the middle of a line, the playback works correctly. Not sure about what splitting measures is all about.
In reply to Maybe it was pilot error. I… by msokol
I haven't watched the video you refer to, but if it's not clear, you also have the option of putting an end repeat in the last measure of one system, then a start repeat in the first measure of the next system and MuseScore will put the begin repeat where it belongs. There is actually no need for an intermediate measure.
In reply to Maybe it was pilot error. I… by msokol
Splitting the measure is what you'd need to do if you want the repeat in the middle of a measure - like between beats 3 & 4 in 4/4 time. That was what the video in question was demonstrating. If it's not relevant for you, then ignore. BTW, to add a start repeat at the beginning of the line, just add it directly - no need to trick MuseScore into doing it by adding a double repeat to the end of the previous measure (although that certainly works too).
If you're still having trouble, please attach your score and describe the problem in more detail.
In reply to Splitting the measure is… by Marc Sabatella
Actually the splitting may have been relevant in Rondo Alla Turca since the measures on either side of the reapeats are all 1/4 time for the entire piece set at 2/4. (I can only infer this as the time notation was not noted to change on the score but the beat count is obvious at 1/4 as there are no rests to take up missing beats.) What I did was change the measure properties of these to actual of 1/4 and then treat the barline as the end of the measure as I would if the measures were full time for the piece. I guess splitting a 2/4 would have had the same effect. BTW.. any reason other than convenience to have repeat signs in both Barlines and Repeats menus?
In reply to Actually the splitting may… by msokol
any reason other than convenience to have repeat signs in both Barlines and Repeats menus
Users asked for repeat signs to be added to the Repeats menu and it was easy to do. I removed them from that palette in my custom workspace.
See #283828: Add end-start repeat barline back to barlines- and repeats palettes
There are several different types of Repeat Signs, each indicating a specific "way" to repeat the music. No matter what kind of Repeat Sign, and no matter which Clef you are in, the placement of the Dots in Spaces does matter!
The Two Repeat Sign Dots are always placed in the middle 2 spaces of the staff. (One dot written in the middle of Space 2 and the other dot written directly above in the middle of Space 3.)
In reply to There are several different… by andrew080
And what has that to do with the topic at hand here?