Nested repeats playback - how to fix without repeating measures over and over again
I'm using MS 3 dev (MuseScoreNightly-2017-09-14-2023-master-00a69ae.7z)
See attached files.
What I want to accomplish is following measure order to be played back:
1-2-1-3-4-5-1-2-1-3-4-6-1-2-1-3
What happens on playback is:
1-2-1-3-4-5-1-3-4-6-1+3 (yes measure 1 and 3 are played back together!)
I've tried with setting volta numbers (1,3 on measure 2, 2,4 on measure 3) but that gives an even more odd result when playing back.
I can't get it to repeat the way I want. This is a very common method in some music books I have available for church music, where this order is the intended order of playing.
can somebody help me out to get it to play properly?
with kind regards,
René Camies
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| repeats.png | 9.6 KB |
| test.mscz | 5.41 KB |
Comments
The most obvious hint I can give, is: don't use the nightly for notating actual music you want to use or playback correctly. The nightlies are for testing purposes only and are unstable and buggy. I would suggest to get the latest stable version (2.1) and try again. If the problem persists in 2.1 , you can report it again here.
In reply to The most obvious hint I can… by Louis Cloete
Actually, I'm experimenting with nightly since it allows for repeats on DC and DS, which the 2.x series does not (yet?).
I just use it for inputting the notation and playing it back to accompany my son while playing piano.
So if I have to say, I use 2.1 for all other purposes and THAT doesn't allow playing of repeats on DS and DC, so yeah, the problem exists there as well, but generates an even worse result.
In reply to Actually, I'm experimenting… by rcamies
as a matter of fact, I have 2.1, 2.2 (nightly) AND 3.0 nightly on my system, just to check for issues. This is something I consider an issue with 2.1, 2.2 AND 3.0 because playback should be logical (i.e. mathematically logical) since music is a mathematical language.
The notation used in the piece should follow logical repeats for any computer would and should according to logic.
However, it is in 3.x because it was already reported as a problem. This is just an addition to the discussions on the playback in 3.x that are already running (for which a number of bug/issue reports are already generated).
I think an option to actually play repeats/volta's properly when implementing the 'play repeats' option in 3.0 exists would be nice just to give additional flexibility to notation that is commonly found in scorebooks.
In reply to as a matter of fact, I have… by rcamies
I have just seen something else. The 3.0 nightly doesn't have a repeat barline with dots on both sides. that could be part of the problem. I have written your attached score in 2.1 and it does indeed handle that part better. For the da capo part, yes it doesn't handle it well, but I suspect it's because the volta specifies 1 and the internal variable for "amount of times already played" is something else (3?). I suspect adding a volta for the third time doesn't work because the program can't handle more than 1 volta on the same measure? It defaults to the smallest number? Because it plays the first time? Anyway, someone familiar with the code should answer this one.
EDIT: I think I understand now why you didn't use a repeat barline with dots both sides.
Pls. Do not use nested bar-repeats (if possible).
There is a wall at the end of a bar-repeat sign. The next bar-repeat mark can not pass it (to backwards).
In some special cases, you can write a description in the score.
But do not expect the software to play this music on the right order.
Why?
Let's say we have an example as above.
Can you figure out in which order it will be played?
Or, if this music is played in the order of writing (with repeats), how many measures have been in total?
Musicians should not deal with such road-map problems.
PS: The picture (example) you add seems innocuous; However, as you can see my example; it opens a door to chaos.
PS2: Except for the problem of some measures playing together. You can write a separate bug-report that about that. (with version-number.)
In reply to Pls. Do not use nested… by Ziya Mete Demircan
Thanks :)) I agree with you. The music was handwritten from 1999 and I was trying to decifer it 😂