Extra barlines before repeats

[motet]

If there's a time signature change at a forward repeat, Finale throws in these extra barlines. Is this a standard convention? It seems cluttered and unnecessary. If it's suppressed with a measure attribute, Finale leaves unwanted space.

Any way to turn this off?

[N Grossingink]

The single barline before a time change is customary. To me, its presence in this case is harmless.

[motet]

That's true about a barline before a time change. But perhaps the time change should be after the forward repeat, and no single barline. To me it looks odd.

[mmike]

As far as I can see, it doesn't ADD any space, it just looks like it because the barline is gone. You can adjust that to your liking by specifying a negative number at Measure Attributes > Extra Space at End

[motet]

It adds space for the barline and some surrounding space, even if the barline is invisible. Negative space at the end is a good tip--thanks.

[motet]

Does this look weird?

[N Grossingink]

I've never seen that before, that I can remember. The Time Signatures take some of the visual focus away from the repeat bar.

[Shinohara 1027]

Hello, motet, your latest example looks good. This is correct. The time signature and key signature should appear behind the barlines.

By the way, the general quick way to do this is to insert a measure, replace the time signature and key signature in the inserted bar, then uncheck "Include in Measure Numbering", and finally adjust the Measure Width to 0.

It should be noted that this is different from what Gould mentioned in Behind Bars. This style is more traditional. You will be more likely to see this style in classical publishing houses in Europe and Japanese publishing houses, and now there is no software that can automatically implement this style. It can only take the "insert measure" method mentioned above.
（Thinking that a considerable number of people in this forum regard Ms. Gould as an authority, so I would like to add this. Please make your own choice.）

[John Ruggero]

I vote Traditonal. This is not a good look:

Never saw the "Gould system" until the advent of computer engraving. Perhaps it is easier to program. Dorico can't do the traditional automatically either and requires a rather complex workaround.

[motet]

I'm happy to see Shinohara's and John's comments. I posted the question on the Gould-worshipping "Music Engraving Tips" Facebook group and the vote was 31-0 for the Gould style. It seems to me like the repeat itself is a barline--absent a key or time signature change it replaces the barline--so why should a key or time signature change generate a new barline and create an empty "measure"?

[Shinohara 1027]

At least I will never choose Ms. Gould's style on this issue, although it is also "correct". I agree with what motet said, "the repeat itself is a barline"

Behind Bars has always been Ms. Gould's own idea, and I don't think there is "authority" in the field of Music Engraving. After all, Music Engraving develops and changes with the times. According to the country and region, it will also There are different places.

Music Engraving should be divided into three situations: things that are obviously wrong, things that are obviously right, and things that can't be said right or wrong, which are called "style". I don't want to deny the value of Behind Bars itself. This book makes more people know Notation and Music Engraving, but Behind Bars tries to define Music Engraving with pure right and wrong when describing a lot of content. I don't think it's good.

[John Ruggero]

Behind Bars tries to define Music Engraving with pure right and wrong when describing a lot of content. I don't think it's good.

Well said. Gould was (is?) a music editor and editors want to nail everything down in black and white; the born adversaries of composers, who want to express themselves freely and not Behind Bars.

And she didn't get everything of the "obviously wrong and obviously right" categories right either, as in the present case. But as a whole Behind Bars is an excellent, unique resource and one that I consult a lot.

[David Ward]

… … … Gould was (is?) a music editor … … …

I think she is still at Faber, but is due to retire at the end of this month. Somewhere in her introduction she states that not everyone will agree with her.

She is writing very much from a UK perspective and also in a UK style, which to people from the US (and elsewhere) may perhaps appear to be more adamant than is intended (I've had experience of such misunderstanding). A while ago, I e-mailed her and pointed out a passing, minor error in Behind Bars: she accepted my correction.

[John Ruggero]

That's interesting, David. Actually, I've not had the impression that she is adamant, just hard-pressed to squeeze everything in; so a lot of provisos probably got lost on the cutting room floor. It is a shame, however, that the many corrections like yours that she must have received are not going to appear in a second edition, which I believe she has ruled out. But maybe this will happen in her retirement after all.

I posted the question on the Gould-worshipping "Music Engraving Tips" Facebook group and the vote was 31-0 for the Gould style.

You might suggest to them that the best of all resources for trying to decide issues like this and the ultimate authority are IMSLP and one's personal music library.