There are some special cases where repeats are numbered seperately, but they are rare, and there is always a good reason for this.
I have not seen a single score by a major publisher, where the first ending and second ending are just numbered through.
I really think that such practice is only done (at least as far as anything up to 1900 goes) by computer engravers who don't know better. That doesn't make it a convention.
Please show me proof if you disagree.
Johannes
Owain Sutton wrote:
It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the
measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it or not.
It's already become very clear that this is *not* a standard, but just one of several conventions.
-- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
