Johannes Gebauer wrote:
It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be different for contemporary music, though.
The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a first and second ending, and another not having one. But even when this isn't the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 follows measure 8, and not 9.
The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or in calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second section in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there perhaps is an extra note in the first ending. Very often the manuscript/autograph wouldn't even give you two different endings but just another way of indicating what should be played each time.
Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) avoids all kinds of counting problems.
Johannes
I agree with all the logic Johannes has put forth, and for studying form it works best to have logical numbers, so if the first phrase is 16 measures long, with the 16th measure being the first ending and also the second ending, it is much more clear to have the second phrase begin on measure 17, for study purposes. It makes memorizing forms much easier, I find. It also makes it more clear that the second ending is the 16th measure of the phrase, not the 17th measure as it would appear to be if the measures are numbered straight through.
However, since we are dealing with a computer program and can ensure that all parts are numbered exactly the same, I also find that with study issues set aside it really doesn't matter how the measures are numbered, just as long as all parts and the score agree and the numbers are in the music frequently enough to make finding specific measures easy for everybody. I get so tired in rehearsals when, as conductor, I say let's begin at measure 178, only to have to wait for 3 minutes while everybody tries to locate that measure on their parts, and quite often have them not able to find it and simply to save time I end up going back much further to something I know they all have, like a double bar or a key change.
Whichever system a person uses, just make sure they actually ASSIST rehearsals and performances. Any system which isn't marked frequently enough in the music is worthless as anything other than a matter of pride (questionable pride at best) in having numbered the measures.
To that end I would also discourage the use of numbers as rehearsal marks unless they actually denote the real measure number. Nothing wastes time more than my saying "Let's start at 6" and having half the band begin at rehearsal marking 6 and the other half going all the way back to the 6th measure of the piece. If you want to have rehearsal marks which aren't measure numbers, use letters please.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
