Andrew Stiller wrote:
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.
Please can you tell me one publication of a _classical_ (ie 18th century) work from one of the major publishers where this practice is followed? I certainly know that any of the big complete editions (Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, you name it) do not have separate numbers for first and second endings.
Again, as I said before, the reasoning for contemporary music may well be different.
I would argue that if you were going to bring out that new edition of Beethoven Symphonies, you would probably not get many friends in the orchestra pit if you numbered differently from everyone else. Just imagine the confusion when the conductor uses the complete edition with different measure numbers. Nightmare.
That's why I would strongly argue against separate numbers at least for anything written before 1880.
It's bad enough that Ricordi decided to number through all movements in the Vivaldi complete edition, when everyone else doesn't.
I agree with you on upbeats etc.
Johannes
-- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
