John Howell wrote:How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 2nd ending bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same.
This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece exist.
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.
It *is* a terrible idea. I don't know what was meant by "all major publishers," but I have seen numerous scholarly editions from famous, highly reputed firms that followed the tradition of separate numbers for first and second endings. The idea is, or should be, that reference to any given number will instantly call out one and only one written measure.
As long as we're on this subject, let me caution against two real and all too common numbering errors:
1) The first numbered measure should always be the first complete measure. Pickups do not constitute a measure and should not be counted.
2) When a measure is divided by a repeat sign in the middle, it is still only one measure, not two. If the repeat sign comes at the end of the line the partial measure beginning the next line should either be unnumbered or numbered in such a way as to point out the division: "(38)" or "38 bis" for example. This same rule applies to all other instances of measures divided across systems.
And while I'm on *that* subject, I disagree with the poster who decried divided measures as unprofessional under all circumstances. Sometimes (mostly in piano music) they just cannot be avoided: a measure full of 32d and 64th notes and bristling with ledger lines, accidentals, and clef changes may well exceed the length of a system, even at 70% reduction. It happens.
-- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
