Re: 2/4 not before repeat line in incipit to `Repeats'

[Bernard Hurley]

On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:41:37PM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2009, at 15:41, Valentin Villenave wrote:
>
>> Er, I got lost in the discussion. Could you sum up your report
>> (possibly with a picture)?
>
> The default rule is really that one should have a minimum number of time 
> signatures if the repeat construct is expanded*).

That seems like a reasonable rule. But a quick look through my pile of full 
scores (Mostly Dover reprints of 18th and 19th century scores) shows it is not 
always obeyed. I.e. there are plenty of cases where the a time signature change 
is placed after the repeat sign even though there is no time change inside the 
repeat. As a composer/arranger I always put the time change after the repeat 
sign! Rather than talk about the right or wrong way of doing this it should 
just be a user's option.