I input a back repeat mark at the end of the first system. Then I input a start repeat at the beginning of the second system. The back repeat at the end of the first system is replaced by a single bar line. Where did it go? I am confused. I try again. I try different sequences of inputting the bar lines. The same result. Now I am irritated. This should be a simple thing to do. What is going on?
Then the light dawns. Ah, Dorico considers this to be a double repeat mark even though it is split between the two staves. Of course, this is so logical. and easier, one you know the secret. You can input both repeat marks at once. But is it user-friendly the first time one encounters this?
Why doesn’t Dorico understand and convert the two single repeats into a Dorico-defined “split” double repeat mark behind the scenes or at least throw up an alert? Why the expectation that the user will understand the way Dorico will “think” about this. Don’t most people consider this to be two distinct repeat marks when they look at the music, not a double repeat split between two staves?
In fact, I think of any double repeat mark as two distinct repeat marks that have been conflated to avoid unnecessary bar lines. I don’t think of a single repeat as being half of a double repeat.
I’ve gotten burned by this many times when one repeat ends a system and is off screen. I really wish repeats could be additive, so if I have an End Repeat at the end of a system, and input a Start Repeat at the beginning of the next, Dorico is smart enough to realize I want to add another repeat, not delete the existing one.
That’s a great example of the program getting in the way of the writing process. When I’m writing, I don’t want to think “oh crap, I’d better switch to Galley or Dorico might screw up my repeats.” If I want a repeat, I just want to input it. Why not simply make it additive like Finale?
Much to my surprise, it seems that neither Finale nor Sibelius can do what Dorico calls an “endstart” repeat in one fell swoop.
I support the option of being able to do it additively, but I also want to hang on to the ability to input an endstart repeat as we have it (as most of the time I know what my repeat structures are going to do before I put them on the page).
If I’m doing a copying job, then sure I know, but if I’m writing I usually don’t. In any case it’s only another second to add the other side of the repeat, but currently takes longer to need to proofread every repeat in a score. It’s even a couple of minutes longer (plus embarrassment) to have to stop a rehearsal and say, “oops I’m missing an end repeat there. Can everyone pencil in a repeat at the end of bar 79?” Simply making repeats additive can avoid that. It’s not often (or ever?) that I want to start a new repeat but delete the previous one.
Also now that, in D5, adding a start-repeat barline with a few bars selected conveniently creates both repeats at once, it’s even more expected that this won’t remove an existing repeat in the other direction.
