Hi Johannes,
I don't doubt that you are correct. But I was just wondering (A) if I had understood you correctly (which I guess I did), and (B) what the rationale was? This practice still strikes me as a terrible idea, B�renreiter or no.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
On 29 Nov 2004, at 03:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Why don't you check yourself? Look at any major publisher's edition, B�renreiter, Henle, Peters, Breitkopf and H�rtel, which ever. I am pretty sure you will find that I am correct.
Johannes
Darcy James Argue wrote:
The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same.Really? So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second ending, *both* measures would have the same number?
Is that really standard practice? That seems like a really terrible idea to me. I've always either done what John does, above (just number consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you describe below. I have never even considered having, for instance, two measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for the second.
What is the rationale for this?
-- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
