some critics on repeats

• Apr 23, 2015 - 00:33

I have seen a lot of printed scores and there I normally find a segno twice.
At the Point where to jump and at the Point where you jump from. At this point you also find the mark D.S. al....
I think this is because you can also have multiple segni and then it also makes sence to have different Kind of marks.
There are mainly two Versions of "segno".
One is the one you have in musescore the other one goes down the bar and Looks a bit like the § sign (with 5 eyes :) ). Ok difficult to describe, you may look up "dal segno" at wikipedia.de. I like the § segno and sometimes I would like to write more then one segno-jump. Then the next Problem appears, because then I would perhaps have the D.S. al O-O (O=Coda-sign) twice musescore would not be able to handle this.
Before testing musescore I have scarecly seen a mark "To Coda" and I do not really like that.
Also for the Coda - Mark you have it normally twice. Nothing changed about that during the last 40 years, at least not in Germany.

Ok, musescore is may be good enough to get printable scores, because it is possible to put segni or Coda as much as needed. But if we want to get the scores played like musicians should do then there are Problems, additional Problems.

Let me say I have a part that should be repeated and before the start of this part I put e.g. some pp. Inside the part I somewhen change to mf. What will happen when the part is repeated ? Musescore will jump back to pp instead of keeping the mf which was set later. The musician will hopefully not change to pp. But why should he ? He would not read the pp any more.


Comments

Welcome aboard...

It is MuseScore's primary mission to produce printable scores - readable by performing musicians. The playback function is provided as a kind of 'spellcheck' - for one to hear if the notes/harmonies are correct. Over the years, much progress has been made in this area - such as the ability to change soundfonts - but, as you have discovered, some shortcomings still need to be addressed.

One area in particular is jumping around the score using D.C. or D.S. - especially when these jumps occur from within a repeat. One workaround, of course, is to create a 'longer' score by writing out all the problematic jumps/repeats to ensure correct playback, then exporting it as a sound file (or midi) so that any interested parties can hear the score as it should be played, while following along in the 'shorter' printed version.

Concerning repeats and jumps --
The more complicated the road map, the more difficult it is for MuseScore (and even for human musicians) to follow. Many times playback errors can be traced to an end (or start) repeat sign not having a corresponding start (or end) repeat sign. Other reasons are incorrectly entered voltas.

Please feel free to attach a sample score illustrating any specific issue(s).
Many times help from the MuseScore forum can show how to achieve the best results.

Regards.

If you don't like To Coda and prefer a Coda sign, feel free to add To Coda to your score and then double click it to edit it, delete the text, press F2 to insert the coda symbol, change the size of the text to match. You should have a working "to Coda" displayed as a coda sign.

In reply to by lasconic

ah, ok, thx.
I yesterday installed musescore 2. Before I had the Impression that it is impossible to get correct repeats in musescore by using D.S. at all.
At least I now have correct repeats (after eliminating some problems obviously produced by musescore 1.3) even if I had to do a kind of work around to avoid 2 segno jumps. For the Moment I use musescore just as a check System not for printing anything. My old octava SD10 program is much simpler in formating scores but does not allow more then 10 parts (which I would not print anyway).
May be it is just a question of training. Will see.

In reply to by OEST

Feel free to ask questions. I'm not familiar with that program. but MuseScore is *extremely* powerful - really more like Finale and Sibelius in terms of its capabilities than it is like any of the lesser known programs. With that extra power comes at time a little more compelxity, but it also strives to be as simple as possible. Probably whatever you are wanting to do *can* be done simply, but the use model and way you think about things is probably different from what you are accustomed to, which might make it *seem* less simple at first.

At the beginning I often had the problem that orchestral parts were missing. I had, for example, scores for es-clarinet, but no es-clarinet player, c-flute players instead but no scores for them. Due to the age of the arrangements it was not possible to buy the missing parts. That's why I started to use simple notation software many years ago. Initially it was Toccata by Data Becker as far as I remember. I once had also bought a version of Capella, but it was not my thing. The reason for the purchase was basically Capella Scan, but this proved to be completely useless. By chance I came across Octava from Obtiv.com and bought a licence for the four-part version (SD4) because I was immediately familiar with it. You can still download a SD4 for free but without a license you cannot print anything.
I do not get updates on a regular basis, unfortunately, so I then "updated" by buying the SD10 license when migrating to Windows 7.
For my purposes it is sufficient in most cases and IMHO it's usage is very intuitive, scarcely had to ask the manual for help. Think Musescore could learn from that.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.