You might also like the story behind Tahiti Trot - arranged for full orchestra, in just 45 minutes. Shostakovich truly had a remarkable skill.
Yes, exactly. Musicology is always retrospective. In almost all cases, the greats are recognized as such not for how well they followed the established rules, but in how elegantly they broke them and created a new cycle of retrospective analysis.
1 Like
The myth of great composers breaking the rules of composition will never die.
3 Likes
Interesting thread in some parts, I think… back to topic: I think your new version is better and clearer as you imported many of the good suggestions above. You now have one long repeat still in there which should be gone though, I think: You write to repeat sections B and C, so I’d interpret this now as ABCBCBDEEAB but still raise the standard question on DC/DS: con rep or senza rep (as I guessed)? But propably in this case, it’s just a simple mistake remaining from the “long first ending”-version (which I don’t like, too, like many others here, though it theoretically does the job clearly).
BTW: You must have damn good (piccolo) flutists (playing up to double e notated if I counted correctly, on picc even sounding another octave higher)! 
1 Like
That Picc part’s sounding pitch is off the top of the piano! Does anyone have a recording of a Picc playing that high? Most flute players take the end of the Ibert concerto up so it ends on a F, a semitone even higher, and guys like Richard Egues and other charanga flute players are routinely up in that register, but I honestly can’t think of an example of a Picc playing that high.
Jumping off of this, whether or not these repeat signs are left over from the previous version, it seems your sequence at the top of the page is inconsistent with the repeat markings:
A-B-C-A-B-Fine
If you meant to remove the bar repeats, I believe the sequence would be:
A-B-C-B-Fine
since you wrote D.S. rather than D.C.
Otherwise, @Waldbaer provided the correct sequence if keeping the bar repeats was intentional.
Additionally, this could be dealer’s choice, but for the second line of your sequence, I might include an additional “E” (D-E-E), just to relieve any doubt about that specific barline-repeated section.
Having said that, I have another suggestion to counter the “e poi TRIO” notation: what about codas?
At the end of C, you could write D.S. al Coda. At the end of B, you could have 2 lines of text: on top would read “{coda sign} to CODA” or something like that, and beneath that would read “Fine”. The second CODA sign would be at the start of D. Then at the end of E, you could write “D.C. al fine”, which would would bring the players to the beginning and play until the end of B, since the music instructed them to stop at Fine, rather than go to the CODA again.
Many thanks to @Waldbaer and @MorganR for bringing this thread back to topic.
They are both dead right. (Yes, I was in too much of a hurry.)
- The repeat marks should have been erased.
- And the first play-through of the March should have gone back to the segno (B) not the top (A)
Does anyone have any view on whether D.C. and D.S. should correctly be below or above the staff?
I notice that this site puts them below: Repeat Signs Musical Symbols and Dotted Barlines.
But the Wikipedia article puts them above: Da capo - Wikipedia
Here is a new corrected version, with repeat-bars and other errors corrected.
Ding-Dong March - Flute - Piccolo.pdf (90.0 KB)
Yes, my flautists are amazing. But it’s really just a flute part with the words “& piccolo” added. I’m assuming the first flautist will drop down the octave when it gets too high. Maybe I should ask her first.
Thanks for appreciating my feedback!
Concerning above or below… I think it’s mostly written above, Elaine Gould suggests putting it below, though, and somehow this feels right, too, especially at the end of a page. The problem is touched in the Dorico documentation, too:
In your case it’s probably better to leave them above I’d say, because you don’t have much space on the page to make clear which system they are connected to.
Many thanks, @Waldbaer
I went to those options and selected Gould, since I thought it would look nicer to have them underneath the staff.
But it didn’t move them below the staff, tho it did rewrite my layout in ways I didn’t want.
I did “Reset Position” on the D.S./D.C. Markers, but still no change of position.
So I Ctrl-Z back to where I was.
When one selects the Repeat Marker, there doesn’t seem to be an option anywhere to move it below the staff.
The above/below position of Repeat markers is set in Layout Options (ctrl-shift-L>Stave and Systems>Repeat Markers). Remember these are layout specific. When you select them you must ensure the correct layouts are highlighted on the right side of the dialog window. It is all too easy to forget this and end up only changing the top (score) layout!
1 Like
THank you @Janus . That’s very helpful. How can I adjust the vertical position once they are below the staff. They could do to be a little higher.
I believe that is set in Engraving Options>Repeat Markers>Vertical Position
Thank you. I just discovered it and was about to say, but you were too quick 
Thanks
The problem with that setting is that that makes other settings (like the TRIO above the Staff, which is a modified Coda) to fall down on top of the staff.
If I try to shift it up in Engrave Mode, set to Globally, it still only moves on one part. How can I get it to move up system-wide.
if this thread keeps getting longer, the title will have to be changed to “Mythological question re repeat structures.”
Haydn comes to mind here🙂
Hi, I find this disquisition on Italian words very amusing.
Given my objective difficulty in the English language… 
For example, what would these “Italian” musical terms be?
Can you give me an example?
Thank you…
Concerning the Topic of what is best to read; I have one minor addition to the context:
Back in the days, Marches were only (or mostly) played by marching-bands on the street, thus - needed to have an extremely condensed music-layout, if somewhat longer. I think that Strauß’ original, but quite un-orthodox method of notating the music, was because it had to fit on one piece of paper. If any smart composer (wich he certainly was) would want any musician to be able to play his music through without any rehearsal or special need for explanation, he would have written it very clearly on 3 sheet of paper. (Now, not that he actually wrote the music-parts we see… but, you get my point).
If the March will be played by a (sitting) concert-band, I would suggest to simplify the notation, so that no questions can arise. If it will be performed by a marching-band, they will have to learn the quirks for this very piece… (just like with the Radetzky-March). They will have no problems with it, after one or two run-through. (No matter what version).
2 Likes
My first reaction on readability is to emphatically agree, but I do like the historical connections and thinking about how it might have informed composer choices of what the marches were.
Some music that I don’t like on first hearing, I come to appreciate more when I take the time to understand the genre better . Guess we don’t use words like genre for marches very much, but I was thinking about how my feelings for marches and certain other music is similar.