Why does 2nd Volta Play Twice?
Why does the 2nd Volta in the attached MuseScore file play twice?
The Repeat Count in the Measure is set at 2, just like the other 3 Voltas, which play properly.
The Volta Properties are showing as 1, 2, 3, and 4 - just what you see in the text.
These Voltas should play as 1, 2, 3, 4. Yet instead, they play in this sequence: 1, 2, 2+3, 4.
What's going on?
-Tom
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Throw Open Your Shutters Repeats only.mscz | 17.47 KB |
Comments
select the 2nd volta , right-click, volta properties, repeats list 1 (it should only play the 1st time, once reached). Not very intuitive, I know.
In reply to select the 2nd volta , by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks, Jo-jo.
That works.
But then why do Volta's 3 and 4 work OK, with their Volta Properties/Repeat List set at 3 and 4, respectively? (If I change Volta 3 and 4 Repeat List to 1, they will still play properly.)
What, then, is the actual role of Repeat Count in Measure Properties?
-Tom
In reply to Thanks, Jo-jo. That by tomfeledy
no idea why on the 2nd volta needs to get changed and why it doesn't harm to change 3rd and 4th too
In reply to no idea why on the 2nd volta by Jojo-Schmitz
Sounds like the same bug that has been reported on and off since 2012.
I see a number of "volta repeat" problems posted in the last several months.
I wonder where this sits on the list of things to fix in version 2.0.3?
-Tom
In reply to Sounds like the same bug that by tomfeledy
Which bug? Can you be more specific? sure, there are lots of questions posted here, but most are just user misunderstandings, not bugs.
In reply to Which bug? Can you be more by Marc Sabatella
However it might be nice if someone who understands exactly how this particular feature works (by all appearances this is a rather small set of people) took time to write it up clearly for the handbook. It really *is* confusing.
For myself I go by this rule: What is too complicated for a computer is likely too complicated for musicians reading the music too. If the conductor has to explain it in rehearsal, wasting time, it is too complicated--and risky if someone under performance stress is likely to make an incorrect jump. So I write out some repeats to keep things simple for everybody. In long pieces this may lead to page turn issues though.
In reply to However it might be nice if by azumbrunn
That the repeat counter of a measure is called that, but in fact is a play counter, (play twice == repeat once) is another strange thing, causeing confusion time and time again.
That the repeat counter needs to be set to e.g. 3 when there is a 3rd volta (and even if that particular measure is only played once or twice), is also strange, the existence of a 3rd volta is enough for any human reader, why not for MuseScore.
a volta "1.+3." and "2.+4.", perfectly OK for a human reader IMHO, doesn't work in MuseScore, with or without proper repeat lists and repeat counts.
'Jump with repeat' doesn't work, etc.
The list of things with jumps, repeats and voltas that do not work is longer than the list of things that do work and there are lots of threads in the forum about them and lots of issues in the tracker. And 'works' here means 'playback', of course.
In reply to That the repeat counter of a by Jojo-Schmitz
Well said, Jojo.
Thanks,
-Tom
In reply to Which bug? Can you be more by Marc Sabatella
That a 2nd volta, as taken from the palette (!), needs to get its repeat list chased to 1, if there is a 3rd volta, is a bug to me. That a repeat list gets ignored for last volta, if there are more than 2, is at least strange.
In reply to That a 2nd volta, as taken by Jojo-Schmitz
I would say Jojo's explanation is a good description of this bug.
Perhaps Marc would know if this bug has been documented as such.
Where is the behavior of Volta Properties Repeat List numbers vs. Measure Properties Repeat Counts clearly documented?
-Tom
In reply to Which bug? Can you be more by Marc Sabatella
Yes, there are many things not implemented. But again, that's very different from asking for some particular bug that was first reported in 2012 to be fixed. Again, if there is a *specific* bug - or even a specific new fesature you'd like to see implemented (eg, removal of a particular a limitation that current;y exists), we would need you to say which *specific* issue you are concerned with.
In reply to Which bug? Can you be more by Marc Sabatella
Yes, there are many things not implemented. But again, that's very different from asking for some particular bug that was first reported in 2012 to be fixed. Again, if there is a *specific* bug - or even a specific new fesature you'd like to see implemented (eg, removal of a particular a limitation that current;y exists), we would need you to say which *specific* issue you are concerned with.