How do I alter this. I want the clef to the right of the double repeat not in between the repeat marks. It looks ugly between the repeat marks… This only happens on the double repeat… I see that has been mentioned in the past with work arounds. This is known as a bodge. Has it been fixed yet.
This is known, of course. And according to Gould, it is the way it should be. So no, this has not been corrected yet, as it doesn’t need to. But an option to follow other rules is still welcome, and has not raised the top of the pile yet.
Yeah, I also don`t like clefs between repetitions, and your example is where this kind of approuch will cause errors and confusion (and every musician will write a caution bass clef before the end of repetition, to avoid error).
The only place I’ve seen this style is in Gould and Dorico. Can anyone cite an example from the standard repertoire from a well-known publisher (other than Faber)?
Note that Ross shows the cautionary 4/4 near the end of his example. If Dorico is going to insist on not allowing clef, meter, or key sig changes inside the opening repeat indication, then there really should be a way to add cautionaries before the closing repeat.
Thanks, FredGUnn. I’m looking for just one example of the Gould-Dorico style in the standard repertoire of printed music from a well-known publisher, rather than something from a book on music notation.
I’m not sure if I understand Ross correctly, but here is what I am accustomed to seeing when there is meter change at a repeat sign in the middle of a staff (from a Henle edition of Beethoven’s op. 111):
Yeah, it’s just easier to flip through an index than a pile of music, LOL! For a very contrived example, I’m curious how should the following should be notated. Obviously there are cautionary meter, clef, and key changes that could be applied at the ending repeat, but none of those potential cautionaries apply when continuing.
Where would you place the initial clef, meter, and key change in bar 2, and how would you handle any potential cautionaries at the end of bar 7 before the repeat?
At first I wanted a courtesy bass clef at the end of bar 7 …
But then you’d need another treble clef for bar 8 – confusing.
If the bass clef could be after the forward-repeat, that would handle it.
Logically, since the repeat changes key, clef and meter, they should all come after the forward-repeat. With that, I wouldn’t need the courtesy ♭s in bar 2 or courtesy sigs at the end of bar 7.
As for the change to G major, I’m used to seeing a double-barline at a key change (if no repeat barline). Either that or (better) the key sig style with canceling ♮s would obviate the courtesy ♮s in bar 5.
So my ideal order at bar 2 is: ||: first, followed by 5♭, 5/8, and bass clef! And no single barline in addition to the repeat barline.
It avoids any need for additional cautionaries at the end of bar 7 at all, including the awkwardness of needing consecutive clefs between a cautionary bass clef at the end of 7 and then a restated treble in 8. The cue sized clef looks odd to me though when directly followed by a key sig and meter without an intervening barline, but I guess is ok. (Lack of a double bar at the switch to G doesn’t bother me, as I’m used to seeing double bars have a structural meaning.)
Oh, wait, you want the clef after the meter, like this?
I’m not sure what I think of that, LOL! The cue sized clef looks more natural to me here immediately followed by notes, but the order is messing with my brain a bit.
You’re using a cautionary bass clef at the end of bar 7, but no cautionary key sig (back to Db) or cautionary meter (back to 5/8), because only the clef is outside the repeat? That’s an interesting way to handle it! The clef is the only thing that is cue sized, so it does look strange to me without the barline in my examples. The bass clef then treble clef on either side of the repeat in your top example looks odd too though!
Hahaha, oops!!! It’s just a playing technique. I know it was aligned correctly initially because I was using the “real” key sig to align it, but then some edit must have caused it to move. Obviously that’s unintentional and quite wrong.