Like I keep saying, it's not about the gesture, or the phrasing, or any of that stuff. Measure numbering follows a simple, objective, easy-to-understand and (almost) universally-applied rule. Every complete measure gets a unique measure number, and numbering begins with the first complete measure. I see no advantage to creating a bunch of exceptions to a well-established rule that happens to work quite well.
The one situation in which I've been caught unaware is in the matter of bar numbering in repeated sections. Yes, the convention is to give a single identifying number to every measure, and the various options concerning the 1st and 2nd endings were discussed here a little while ago. But I've been caught in Broadway show books where the conductor's score, for example, has a repeated section, while either some of the individual books or all of the individual books have the passage written out completely with no repeat marks. In other words, the score does not show what the players see, which SHOULD be a no-no, but obviously wasn't for those particular copyists.
Doing "Oliver!" this summer. Anybody happen to know whether the orchestra parts are manuscript or have been reengraved?
John
-- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
