Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 23.12.2013 19:06, schrieb Xavier Noria: >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: >> >> Am 22.12.2013 05:54, schrieb Alex Loomis: >>> >>> In many contexts it's preferable to write it out instead of using percent >>>> repeats. If it's a long passage then it's frequently written pretty much >>>> like you had it except with the x3 at the repeat sign. >>>> >>>> >>> I'd second this. >>> But from numerous experiences (from the performer's POV) I can tell you >>> that you somehow have to make clear if you want the passage to be _played_ >>> or _repeated_ three times. This is usually unclear and leads to useless >>> discussions in an ensemble unless the composer has explicitly stated his >>> intention (which probably has to be written out in a sentence). >> >> >> Interesting, what is the difference? >> > > That's what I'm talking about: Many people (composers) don't see the > issue. They take one of them for granted and aren't aware of the > existence of an alternative reading. > > If you repeat something _once_ you play it _twice_. > And if you repeat three times you play four times. > > But often "repeate three times" is used in the sense of "play three times".
Well, put [3×] over the _starting_ repeat sign, and you should be good. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
