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
There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of situation however, and that is to number each performed measure rather than each written one. In that method, if the first eight measures are repeated, the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, not m. 9. This is an admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in published material more than a few times.
-- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
