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

[Hans Aberg]

On 9 Aug 2009, at 21:07, Bernard Hurley wrote:

> > 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.

If one of the alternatives of the repeat end in a meter different from  
what it begins, then if the expansion rule should prevail, there must  
be a time signature at the beginning of the repeat after the |:. And  
it is then unnecessary to have one extra before.

But not even that was followed in the Bulgarian score. It looks like:
  11/16 |: ... | 8/16 ... | 11/16 ... | 8/16 ... :|

> 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.


I figure LilyPond might support what people want to typeset.

  Hans